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.

 

London 2012: Missiles may be placed at residential flats

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I saw this yesterday and this morning while taking a walk i thought to myself.... if the MOD can set up a missile defense system on a block of flats so can terrorists!!

I dont know if this is going too far but i just hope nothing major happens!!




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceJockey1
reply to post by stumason
 


Obviously SARCASM is totally lost on you....



Not at all, I love sarcasm. That said, I did not get a even a hint of it from your post. Hard to do in a text based medium, so maybe next time just put a /sarcasm tag on it. Also, given the sentiment in the rest of your post, sarcasm wasn't exactly obvious, but rather it would appear it was a genuine statement on your behalf.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


These are sick times in which we live. I wonder how on earth tghings will get better in the future. IOt feels more then often we are just doomed



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
The fact that they use something like Starstreak totally doesn't surprise me, I'd expect it even.
What chaps my arse are the morons in these flats going to the press and giving interviews. Mr such and such from TOWER HAMLETS is # scared his block of flats will be targetted by terrorists if they know about it.
Well shut the # up then ya muppet!.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
What the hell kind of threats are these short ranged missiles supposed to counter? Isn't having long range radars + long range SAM's + UAV's + sattelites + countless Navy ships equipped with more long ranged radars and missiles + jet fighters like the EF Typhoon patrolling the airspace enough to deal with basically any realistic airborne "threat"? What is Britain afraid of? An invasion of 1000 jets that overwhelm European defenses? FROM WHERE? What threat can these missiles counter that the before mentioned systems can't counter better in every single way? Who the hell is willing and capable of penetrating British airspace and survive? From where? With exactly what kind of super-mega-aircraft? Are they expecting an invasion from outer space?! Where will "they" take off? How will "they" avoid being detected by dozens of radar installation? How will "they" avoid being intercepted by RAF jets or shot down by Mach5+ SAM's? Super mega stealth? So much here makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever! This is all propaganda designed to normalize military presence around civilians.

WE DON'T NEED YOUR G*D DAMN MISSILES ON OUR G*D DAMN ROOFS! HOW ABOUT YOU DO SOMETHING USEFUL WITH THE MONEY WE THE PEOPLE GIVE YOU AND GET US THE F*CK OUT OF THIS CRISIS?! ARGH!!!!!!!!!

/rage


IT--
edit on 30-4-2012 by edog11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
How is this different than terrorists launching rockets from civilian areas? It's basically the same thing. Now civilians have a greater chance of being targeted.

Human shields. Nope when we do it it's brilliant security strategy. What a bunch of BS.
edit on 30-4-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


It's covering all bases.

All British SAM's are short range affairs with optical guidance, in the case of Rapier it's range is barely over 5km.

The aircraft and ships will deal with long range/high altitude threats.

Overlapping envelopes. It's a sound strategy, but hopefully one that will not be needed. Personally, I would rather they deploy the whole military and the Olympics pass by without incident, than skimp on security and have hundreds/thousands killed live on Global TV. It's bad for business!

And don't forget, the Olympics have been targeted before (albeit not from the air), so it's not as if there is no precedent. The biggest fear amongst security circles is actually a Mumbai style attack. It isn't too far fetched that if a plan was in the works for that, they could use helicopters as transports rather then the boats they used in Mumbai. There are many thousands of civilian helicopters in and around the UK....



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
How is this different than terrorists launching rockets from civilian areas? It's basically the same thing. Now civilians have a greater chance of being targeted.

Human shields. Nope when we do it it's brilliant security strategy. What a bunch of BS.
edit on 30-4-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)


Your not exactly thinking properly here.

How on earth are they, in one of the largest cities on earth, able to avoid deploying in a civilian area?

As stated above, the SAM's the UK has are short range, point defence systems. We did think about, way back, taking the Patriot system for longer range defence, but it was huge pile of arse so we canned it. We cannot avoid placing them in civilian areas.

Also, these are not being used to attack an enemy by hiding within a civilian population, but rather defend said population from external attack. You're comparing apples and oranges.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
How on earth are they, in one of the largest cities on earth, able to avoid deploying in a civilian area?

As stated above, the SAM's the UK has are short range, point defence systems. We did think about, way back, taking the Patriot syst
em for longer range defence, but it was huge pile of arse so we canned it. We cannot avoid placing them in civilian areas.

Someone who knows what he is talking about AND who can spell defence - finally!
'Defense' is the American spelling - for those who know no better .

edit on 30-4-2012 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by starchild10
 


Does happen occasionally, when the Moon is in the right phase, the wind blows in the right direction and I've had a good lunch....



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I'd rather have a save and secure sport event, where nothing dangerous can happen, then a 'away with weapons with security' situation like in Munich 1972 - we all know what happened back then, when Germany decided to lower security to a minimum because of the past and wanting to look like a friendly nation.

Of course paranoid people will instantly see something evil behind it and now tell me that Munich '72 was in reality a false flag attack made by the real rulers of the world: "time traveling Cyborg Reptile Aliens from Osiris" but honestly, i don't know why there's always such a big fuss about security. If you want to live unsecure without real police or anything, go to your favourite african country - but don't complain when you get robbed, raped or bombed away by some terrorists



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I saw this yesterday and this morning while taking a walk i thought to myself.... if the MOD can set up a missile defense system on a block of flats so can terrorists!!

I dont know if this is going too far but i just hope nothing major happens!!


Behave yourself man

The government can do what it wants Several RPG toting terrorists will be quickly dealt with. They are not just gna rock up and casually construct surface to air systems in tower hamlets
edit on 30-4-2012 by KingDoey because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by litterbaux
 



I think you missed the point.


No, you conveniently changed what point you were attempting to make.


They won. The fake terrorists have won.


A curious, simplistic perspective.


You can go on and on how this is safe, in reality, WTF!


Why didn't it exist earlier? You are talking about an event that attracts millions of global travelers. The impact of a conventional strike would be immense if successful. Unconventional methods - such as the release of small pox (which is, contrary to popular belief, only tightly controlled within "Western" worlds - Russian samples of the virus are lacking in documentation and control - along with other nations like North Korea, China, etc) - would be absolutely devastating. Small Pox, released into that crowd, would create a world-wide pandemic that would simply overwhelm emergency response resources.

A smart person who happens across a decent amount of capital can cause a lot of problems for our complacent, ignorant society.

I'm of a predatory mindset. I look at society from the outside (and even my own actions). I look for vulnerabilities as a matter of course - it's in the structure of my mind (probably why I trend toward engineering). Upon a whim, utilizing my observations and some basic training I have - I could easily kill 30+ people within the blink of the media's eye.

Give me a year or two to plot, plan, recruit, and organize...? Even the Secret Service could be given a very challenging run for their money. A large group of panic-prone cattle pushing the logistical capacity of an entire geographic region to its absolute limits.... a lamb for the sacrifice.

I also have an additional advantage - I know that our special operations forces deploy specifically to deal with threats such as those (every operation has logistical footprints and social connections that can be exploited). I can guess at just how many similar operations are neutralized every month that never make the media (and never will), and know a number of the errors individuals make that places them on someone's scope.

In a world where the military is downsizing, the economy is down, finances are tight for everyone etc - knowledge/experience comes cheap.


Rooftop surface to air batteries!?!?!


Why not?

I would pay to put one of those on my roof. ... Of course, I'd want it under my control... but that's a contract negotiation point.

Of all the anti-terrorism efforts - that's the most sensible I've seen in quite a while. Far more effective as a deterrent by comparison to having everyone pass through back-scatter radiation machines - and far less intrusive.

If some jack-off tries to hijack the plane I'm on - His ass is grass, or I'm dying in the attempt. I'm really not concerned about what they bring on that plane. Place SAMs near populated areas and shoot down anyone who gets out of line.

What if it's some confused pilot in a Cessna? Social Darwinism. Administer a little chlorine to the gene pool.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
How is this different than terrorists launching rockets from civilian areas? It's basically the same thing. Now civilians have a greater chance of being targeted.

Human shields. Nope when we do it it's brilliant security strategy. What a bunch of BS.
edit on 30-4-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)


Your not exactly thinking properly here.

How on earth are they, in one of the largest cities on earth, able to avoid deploying in a civilian area?

As stated above, the SAM's the UK has are short range, point defence systems. We did think about, way back, taking the Patriot system for longer range defence, but it was huge pile of arse so we canned it. We cannot avoid placing them in civilian areas.

Also, these are not being used to attack an enemy by hiding within a civilian population, but rather defend said population from external attack. You're comparing apples and oranges.



Er....Yes I am thinking properly thanks. The Palestinians have no other choice but to place their weapons in civilian areas. The entire Gaza strip is one Civilian area, they can't avoid it either. All those people cram packed like a prison but it's a city. Neat huh? Semantics are amazing.
edit on 30-4-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
 


Again, missing the point entirely.

Those "terrorists" launching rockets from Gaza are doing so as an attack of defiance and aggression. They are launching their rockets into other populated area's with the intention of killing civilians.

These SAM's are short range affairs intended as a last line of defence against a low flying aerial threat. They are intended to defend civilians from an aggressive act, not to attack unsuspecting civilians in another country.

You can claim semantics, but this is the fact of the situation and you have spectacularly failed to demonstrate why the two are even remotely the same. I suspect, in fact, you are have tried to create an emotional connection between two totally unrelated things in an attempt to prove a rather lame point.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
 


Again, missing the point entirely.

Those "terrorists" launching rockets from Gaza are doing so as an attack of defiance and aggression. They are launching their rockets into other populated area's with the intention of killing civilians.

These SAM's are short range affairs intended as a last line of defence against a low flying aerial threat. They are intended to defend civilians from an aggressive act, not to attack unsuspecting civilians in another country.

You can claim semantics, but this is the fact of the situation and you have spectacularly failed to demonstrate why the two are even remotely the same. I suspect, in fact, you are have tried to create an emotional connection between two totally unrelated things in an attempt to prove a rather lame point.


If it's a lame point why did you put "terrorists" in quotes? I'm afraid I didn't miss the point at all and you proved mine entirely.

Cheers!



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
 


Proved, how?

I put terrorist in "" marks as, to be honest, it very much depends on your point of view if you're referring to Palestinians and this wasn't the point up for discussion.

Yet again, you have failed to demonstrate why the two are even remotely the same. Want a third bite of the cherry?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
So why is no one considering this to bring on the fake alien false flag attack?



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Hi everyone, this is also being discussed in a similar thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

May be worth a look.



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
 


Proved, how?

I put terrorist in "" marks as, to be honest, it very much depends on your point of view if you're referring to Palestinians and this wasn't the point up for discussion.

Yet again, you have failed to demonstrate why the two are even remotely the same. Want a third bite of the cherry?


Dude. You put terrorists in quotes because it's a semantic. Which was the point of your response to me about semantics. Do you get it yet? The whole situation is semantics as I stated earlier.

Your cherry is sour and this getting boring. Yes, this has gone far from the original topic and if you feel like dragging it on go ahead and have the last word. Because you seem to need to stroke your own ego, so go ahead keep stroking. I'm moving on.
edit on 1-5-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2012 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join