Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
London Flats To Be Turned Into SAM Missile Sites  
User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1844 posts, RR: 42
Posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2967 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17884897

Couldn't believe my eyes when I read this, IMO an utterly crazy, ridiculous and dangerous idea! My knowledge of SAM missiles is limited, but one would think this could pose a risk to "Friendly" air traffic over the London area as well, as no civil planes are identified by an IFF (Identify Friend of Foe) transponder.

Personally I think this is just an overreaction to the ever present threat of terror, and will only give people a false sense of safety. I can hardly believe that any sane person would support this.

What are your thoughts?

Martijn


Fly DC-Jets!
89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2947 times:

After a nutter crashed a microlight on the lawn outside the Reichstag (Germany´s parliament building in Berlin) after he had killed his wife, politicians demanded to basing of SAMs around Berlin´s government quarter. A Bundeswehr general had to explain to them that anything fired into the air will eventually come down again, even if it doesn´t hit a target and that it wouldn´t be a good idea to launch Hawk missiles in the middle of a big city. He also pointed out that shooting down an aircraft, just to have it crash into a residential area would not be a good idea.
The demand was quietly binned.
In any case, it was embarrasing to see how far some politicians would go to risk the lives of the population to save their own skin.

Jan


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2885 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

Quoting CrimsonNL (Thread starter):
What are your thoughts?


Exactly the same as yours! If they put them on the top of residential flats, I would have thought that then makes those flats, and therefore their residents a potential terrorist target too. I wouldn't be best pleased if that was where I lived. Even with SAM's 'protecting' the sky over London, are they really going to shoot down an aircraft over a densely populated area? I know an aircraft flying in to a stadium or other building is going to do untold damage and doesn't bear thinking about, but imagine the loss of life on the ground with aircraft debris and aviation fuel coming down on top. I can understand using them as a deterrent, but to publically announce their intention to put them on the top of residential flats is crazy in my eyes. I'm sure there are non-residential buildings that can be used if it's a must but even then, it's a complete over-reaction.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineyfbflyer From Canada, joined Sep 2006, 298 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

Just another crazy BS over reaction to some virtually non existent threat. How long has the UK had their terror threat as severe?

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

Who's the idiot who made it public? They should have installed the missiles if it was felt to be necessary, and shut up about it.

Quoting CrimsonNL (Thread starter):
My knowledge of SAM missiles is limited, but one would think this could pose a risk to "Friendly" air traffic over the London area as well, as no civil planes are identified by an IFF (Identify Friend of Foe) transponder.

Don't worry about it. SAM missiles have been around for over half a century, including close coverage of airports and cities, and have never been responsible for blowing civilian flights out of the sky.

It's pretty hard to imagine a terrorist scenario where those missiles might come into play, but I can think of a couple, as unlikely as they might be.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Who's the idiot who made it public? They should have installed the missiles if it was felt to be necessary, and shut up about it.

This might be possible with a man portable weapon like a Stinger missile or a Blowpipe, but e.g. a Hawk missile battery in a park is bl**dy obvious.

Jan


User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

The 5th column on the ground in Londonistan which hates its nominal "home country" is far bigger threat to the Games than any potential airborne threat.



User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5):

This might be possible with a man portable weapon like a Stinger missile or a Blowpipe, but e.g. a Hawk missile battery in a park is bl**dy obvious.

Pretty close. The Starstreak HVM is a little bigger than a Stinger, but a far cry from an old Hawk battery(which dates back to the 50s as I recall - does anyone still use Hawks?)

Note the range info in the article. This is a last-ditch point defence option, if, for example, terrorists fly an old 707 freighter filled with explosives and manage to evade air defences further away and want to crash it into a stadium filled with 100,000 people. Sure, a scenario that likely is confined to Hollywood, but the same was said about the tactics used on 9/11. The chances of this battery actually firing are probably 0.000000001%.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
Note the range info in the article. This is a last-ditch point defence option, if, for example, terrorists fly an old 707 freighter filled with explosives and manage to evade air defences further away and want to crash it into a stadium filled with 100,000 people. Sure, a scenario that likely is confined to Hollywood, but the same was said about the tactics used on 9/11. The chances of this battery actually firing are probably 0.000000001%.

Then the 707 will crash right into the middle of a densily populated residential or business area. same results.
The only difference is that the politicians sitting in the stadium will get away.

You are correct, the Bundeswehr retired the system about 5 years ago. The British used to have the Rapier missiles, but I don´t know if they still use them.

Jan


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3938 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2876 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
SAM missiles have been around for over half a century, including close coverage of airports and cities, and have never been responsible for blowing civilian flights out of the sky.

I think a certain Iran Air A300 would disagrree with you... and in a more likely scenario of a small aircraft (e.g., a Cessna) flying around laden with explosives doubt a SAM would do much.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
You are correct, the Bundeswehr retired the system about 5 years ago. The British used to have the Rapier missiles, but I don´t know if they still use them.

Yes we will have the Rapier missiles in service until around 2020.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

From what I understand, the Norwegian army deployed the NASAMS (Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System) missile system around Oslo, when US president Obama visited Oslo. Same system that guards the Whitehouse in Washington DC for some 11 years now ...:

NASAMS I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS

NASAMS II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASAMS_II


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2856 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
Then the 707 will crash right into the middle of a densily populated residential or business area. same results.

Are you sure? A plane crashing into a stadium - 50-100K dead. A plane crashing into a neighborhood is pretty horrific as well, but the population is more spread out - a few hundred dead. Sure it would be a Pyrrhic victory, but can you blame those in charge of Olympic security from at least giving themselves the option?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 8):
Then the 707 will crash right into the middle of a densily populated residential or business area. same results.

Are you sure? A plane crashing into a stadium - 50-100K dead. A plane crashing into a neighborhood is pretty horrific as well, but the population is more spread out - a few hundred dead. Sure it would be a Pyrrhic victory, but can you blame those in charge of Olympic security from at least giving themselves the option?

Not something that will go down particularly with the local residents though!

On the other hand there could be an interesting legal argument if the building owners object to the government plans,


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19385 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

I wonder who they think might pull such an attack off?

Don't say "AQ." AQ is, for all intents and purposes, gone. So who else is big enough and well-organized enough to pull off an air attack on the Olympics?


User currently onlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2791 times:

Quoting yfbflyer (Reply 3):
Just another crazy BS over reaction to some virtually non existent threat.

Yeah cos there's never been any trouble at the Olympics, right? For your edification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre



Fortune favours the brave
User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1844 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2787 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 15):
Yeah cos there's never been any trouble at the Olympics, right? For your edification:

Come on, you can't possibly use that as an argument! That happened 40 years ago!



Fly DC-Jets!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 16):
Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 15):
Yeah cos there's never been any trouble at the Olympics, right? For your edification:

Come on, you can't possibly use that as an argument! That happened 40 years ago!

And even then you had the very experienced 22nd SAS, who wouldn´t have bungled the hostage rescue like the totally inept Bavarian state police did then. The event led to the founding of the GSG 9, which was trained mainly by instructors from the 22nd SAS.

Jan


User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

Instead of parking a missile team on a block of flats in London, why can't they park one of those new type 45 destroyers in the Thames estuary?

The navy keep bleating on about how good it is, with a powerful radar that can detect a flea leaving a dogs backside from 500miles away(OK not quite that good, but you get the point), and the most advanced air defence destroyer ever built and how it can take out multiple targets.



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8685 posts, RR: 43
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting bristolflyer (Reply 15):
Yeah cos there's never been any trouble at the Olympics, right? For your edification:

Do tell: What good would a battery of SAMs have done in 1972? Shot down the helicopter with the hostages in it?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 18):

Instead of parking a missile team on a block of flats in London, why can't they park one of those new type 45 destroyers in the Thames estuary?

Good point. Maybe it's a line-of-sight issue.

Quoting aloges (Reply 19):
Do tell: What good would a battery of SAMs have done in 1972? Shot down the helicopter with the hostages in it?

Welcome to the modern world. Terrorists are much less interested in hostages than in simply killing as many people as possible.

[Edited 2012-04-29 10:32:28]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19385 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20):
Welcome to the modern world. Terrorists are much less interested in hostages than in simply killing as many people as possible.

They don't have to. When the mere possibility that something like this could happen exists, absurd sums of money and abuses of basic rights are committed to ensure that it is marginally less likely. Why do the terrorists have to go to the bother and trouble of coordinating and executing another attack? They haven't done any since London 2005 and since the killing of Bin Laden (and the resultant intelligence we got from the compound) they are essentially neutralized.

Mind you, they will pop back up if left alone, but at this point they are incapable of pulling something like that off.

But our governments and many of our people are all very scared, and when you have scared people, stuff like this happens.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2678 times:

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 18):
The navy keep bleating on about how good it is, with a powerful radar that can detect a flea leaving a dogs backside from 500miles away(OK not quite that good, but you get the point), and the most advanced air defence destroyer ever built and how it can take out multiple targets.

Can you imagine what powering up the SAMPSON radar on one of those would do to ATC? And much more besides in the electronic spectrum?
It's designed to defend ships at sea against complex airborne threats.
Whereas Star-streak is a close range, last ditch air defence system with a minimal electronic footprint.
So which is more suitable as a very last ditch airborne based attack on London. If, a very big if, anything got past the Typhoons.

It does sound all a bit much I know, however previous large security nightmare events since Sept 11th 2001 have employed fighters and SAM's to cover built up areas, this is not a UK thing at all.

2012 is a massive global event, as stated terrorists have not had a 'spectacular' at an Olympics since 1972. They've not been able to. Not through a new found respect of the Olympic ideals.
But terrorism does not stand still, it evolves.
So while a repeat '9/11' style attack seems most unlikely, we have seen since that they are still obsessed with aviation as a means of delivering attacks.

Airliners are much more secure now, what if some wealthy but covert backer of Islamic fundamentalists, say in a rich Gulf state, bought a biz jet in the UK, doesn't have to be new.
He even provided his own pilots.
Won't be a blast like a 757 or 767, still, a high speed dive on to the opening or closing ceremonies would be a 'spectacular'.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7056 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

My take when I first saw the article last night was of a western nation deploying combat missiles in a residential / civilian area. The threads on conflict in the middle east of civilians being hurt when return fire is directed at launchers in civilian area's are legendary.
Yes there is no war or pseudo war taking place in the UK other than the war with Al Q*****, so if terrorist decide that they have to attack a SAM site to assist their other air attack civilians hurt are regarded as what by the government?

However, I still think no one really has yet answered the question and all hope it will never happen, but is there someone assigned who will give the order to launch on a hijacked civilian airline already over London on the way towards an Olympic site? Everyone likes to think the time will be there to consult the proper chain of command which goes up to the Prime Minister / President. Now we get a better idea of why the silly rules were put in place for all being seated and no lavs a specific time before landing.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13033 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

The problem is that politicians need to have very public displays of force to make them look like they are doing something to protect the country to get re-elected. They also buy into a belief that blatantly obvious displays of force will act as a deterrent to a major attack. What if there had been missiles in and around NY City and DC and used on 9/11/01, shooting those a/c before they hit the towers/Pentagon/Pennsylvania, especially after the first attack into the WTC towers? There were 'Nike' missiles surrounding our cities in case the Soviets attacked, where I live in NJ near a major aircraft engine plant during WW II was where military guns were placed to protect it They were never needed to be uses, but it many the locals feel a lot better.

The better answer would be to find ways to take away the hate toward the UK, USA and other countries that give motivation for terror acts.


User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting yfbflyer (Reply 3):
Just another crazy BS over reaction to some virtually non existent threat. How long has the UK had their terror threat as severe?

The current state is "Substantial" for Great Britain

In Northern Ireland, the threat level is "Severe"

according to the Home office, there are 47 international terrorist organisations proscribed under the terrorism act 2000

17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17)
Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)
Abu Sayyaf group
Al-Gama'at al-Islamiya
Al Ghurabaa
Al Ittihad Al Islamia
Al Qa'ida
Al Shabaab
Ansar Al Sunna
Armed Islamic Group
Asbat Al Ansar
Babbar Khalsa
Basque Homeland and Liberty
Baluchistan Liberation Army
Eqyptian Islamic Jihad
Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain
Hamas Izz al Din al-Qassem Brigades
Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami
Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (Bangladesh) (Huji-B)
Harakat-Ul-Mujahideen/Alami
Harakat Mujahideen
Hizbollah Millitary Wing
Hezb-E Islami Gulbuddin
International Sikh youth federation
Islamic Army of Aden
Islamic Jihad Union
Islamic movement of Uzbekistan
Jaish e Mohammed
Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh
Jeemah Islamiyah
Khuddam Ul-Islam
Kongra Gele Kurdistan
Lashkar e Tayyaba
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Libya Islamic Fighting group
Palestinian Islamic Jihad - Shaqiqi
Revolutionary peoples' liberation party - front
Salafist Group for Call and Combat
Saved Sect or Saviour Sect
Sipah-E Sahaba Pakistan
Tehrik Nefaz-eShari'at Muhammadi
Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan
Teyre Azadiye Kurdistan



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8685 posts, RR: 43
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 22):
what if some wealthy but covert backer of Islamic fundamentalists, say in a rich Gulf state, bought a biz jet in the UK

I hope (shame that I can't say I trust) that the various secret services in the UK and elsewhere cooperate and exchange what information they have on that sort of scheme. Buying a business jet, loading it up with explosives and recruiting two fanaticised pilots with all the necessary credentials to fly the thing would be a pretty big job to keep undercover.

Tom Clancy has certainly had an effect on the real world...   



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21):
Why do the terrorists have to go to the bother and trouble of coordinating and executing another attack? They haven't done any since London 2005

Bombay 2008?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 27):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21):
Why do the terrorists have to go to the bother and trouble of coordinating and executing another attack? They haven't done any since London 2005

Bombay 2008?

As we´ve seen with Mr. Breivik in Norway and in Bombay, a handful of determined men and women armed with automatic weapons with plenty of ammunition and a bunch of hand grenades each can wreak havoc if used in various locations at once against an unarmed population.
This is a much more likely scenario.

Jan


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

There was an absorbing documentary last week, on the plot in 2006 to blow up a fleet of airliners, flying from the UK to N.America, using explosives secreted into soft drinks bottles.
Tests on their formula proved it was viable.

Now we know what happened, they got busted, all now serving very long minimum prison terms.
But consider how outlandish the whole thing sounds, how it would have sounded before August 2006?
Some at the time thought the whole thing some kind of government put up job, not just the usual conspiracy types either.
But they were convicted after a long and complex trial. It was true, they could have succeeded.

This might not seem to have any bearing on air defence for the 2012 games, except that the plotters, however twisted they are, displayed an extraordinary ingenuity to come up with this whole idea.
And it wasn't a mainstream AQ op either, it was them, a contact on Pakistan, some low level instruction one of the plotters had on visits there. (Which prompted the initial interest of the security services).
No training camps, no shaking hands with Bin Ladan.

Can we really say that this sort of ingenuity - and we've seen others since 2006 - cannot possibly be applied to using aviation in still more ways?
None of us on here have to plan for as many contingencies as we can possibly imagine, while still allowing a successful games, neither are we privy to intelligence reports.
Nor do we have to take the rap if something does happen.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Imagine 20 terrorists in teams of 2-3 men each armed with an AK-47 (folding stock version, so that it can be easily hidden in a bag), 10 magazines each with 30 rounds each, and 5 hand grenades.
The teams spread out over verious districts of London, and on a certain cue (e.g. by mobile phone) start randomly shooting people and throwing grenades into shops or crowds of people.
Police and army would get conflicting reports and emergency calls. By the time they have sorted out where the attackers are concentrated, hundreds of people will be killed. If you have religious fanatics, they will fight until they are dead.

Jan


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 26):
Buying a business jet, loading it up with explosives and recruiting two fanaticised pilots with all the necessary credentials to fly the thing would be a pretty big job to keep undercover.

Tom Clancy has certainly had an effect on the real world...

I don't read his books. Neither did I mention loading a biz jet up with explosives.
However I do understand that in one Clancy novel published before 2001, a terrorist knifed to death a pilot on a civil airliner and crashed it into the White House.

Only suggested one possible idea to still use aircraft as weapons, that might circumvent the high security around airliners, since that is what they do, try to find ways around security.
One bunch learned that hijacking an airliner and flying it, or getting the crew to fly it, a long distance to the target did not work. We know this since an Islamist group tried just that with an AF Airbus in 1994. To crash it on Paris.
Google it if you don't know about this.

Lesson - if you are going to use an airliner as a missile do it in the same country and not too far away from your target. Hi-jacking means taking immediate flight control, with your own pilots. As we saw 7 years later.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8685 posts, RR: 43
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 30):
Imagine

I'd rather not... yikes, you're scary sometimes!

Quoting GDB (Reply 31):
I don't read his books. Neither did I mention loading a biz jet up with explosives.

'course not, I'm sorry if I came across that way. I was referring to the original idea of putting SAMs in a residential area as a result of Clancy-ish "strategies"; that and reply no. 7 (about explosives).

Quoting GDB (Reply 31):
that is what they do, try to find ways around security.

Sadly, yes, and that is why I hope to be able to rely on secret services. The idea that a plane might be crashed into the Olympic Park sounds like complete and utter fearmongering, something that a government that's trying to score points by showing that they're "serious about fighting the bad guys" would come up with.

There's also this quote from the MoD, as per the article:

Quote:
Having a 24/7 Armed Forces and police presence will improve your local security and will not make you a target for terrorists.

which is just so utterly stupid. They're saying that some sort of terrorist organisation, even after eleven and a half years of running from bullets, shells, missiles and drones, might be able to obtain a jet and sufficiently inconspicuous kamikaze pilots. They'd do all this without being found out and then fly close enough to the Olympic park to warrant a last-second defence with a ground-based high-velocity missile... and yet they'd be stupid enough to forget about a prominently announced battery of SAMs in the vicinity? Surely they would attack that very thing before the jet came even close to its target?

There's a bigger chance of Germany winning gold, silver and bronze in the marathon.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19385 posts, RR: 58
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 29):
Can we really say that this sort of ingenuity - and we've seen others since 2006 - cannot possibly be applied to using aviation in still more ways?
None of us on here have to plan for as many contingencies as we can possibly imagine, while still allowing a successful games, neither are we privy to intelligence reports.
Nor do we have to take the rap if something does happen.

What I am telling you is that if we do not catch the plot before it moves into the execution phase, then we missed the boat.


User currently offlinevegetables2001 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2603 times:

Why bother? In my experience an airliner falling into certain parts of East London would more like come under the category of 'Urban Redevelopment' rather that 'Terrorist Outrage'.


A306,319,333 ATR72 BAC113/5, B703/704,717,721,732/3/4/5/7/8,741/1/4,757,763,773/E, DC8-6,9-3/5,10-30, DC106
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8685 posts, RR: 43
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

Quoting vegetables2001 (Reply 34):
In my experience an airliner falling into certain parts of East London would more like come under the category of 'Urban Redevelopment' rather that 'Terrorist Outrage'.

While they're at it, why not redevelop the area cleared by the crash as a reliever airport for LHR?   



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19385 posts, RR: 58
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 35):

While they're at it, why not redevelop the area cleared by the crash as a reliever airport for LHR?   

Radio the terrorists on the way down: "Listen, as long as you're going to crash the plane with all the people aboard, would you terribly mind doing us a favor and crash in a straight line?"   

*touch wood*

The thing is that if they've somehow kept the operation under wraps long enough to get the planes in the air, the gig's up. The most effective thing would be bioweapon dispersal and even if you blow them up, the bioweapon gets dispersed. The trick to these things is to catch them in the planning phases, which has been a mostly successful strategy since 9/11. It took a few terrorist attacks in Europe to get them to notch up their intelligence, but they got the hang of it very quickly.

Intelligence, not weapons, is going to stop terrorist attacks. Well, that and good foreign policy, but I ask too much.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8685 posts, RR: 43
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
good foreign policy, but I ask too much

Really, how could you? I am shocked, utterly shocked!  Wow!



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2449 times:

I totally agree that the best way to stop any plot is indeed to nip it in the bud, find out about it and arrest those responsible before anything happens.
Which the UK security forces have a very good record in doing, apart from once in 2005. Which no doubt still haunts those whose job it it to prevent such things.

However, contingency planning has to go rather deeper than that.

If it's Starstreak weapons that are to be employed, it's not like some big missiles are going to be perched on some building, it's a tripod (or vehicle) launched system, that uses a small ultra fast missile that does not have a warhead but 3 small penetrating darts that will wreck a flying target by the sheer speed they impact at (Mach 4 I think).

And the MoD are wrong to point out that there are some security issues around deploying them? So better if they don't?
Seems they cannot win.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 38):
Seems they cannot win.

No, they cannot win. If a terrorist controlled plane has reached the greater London area, it is too late. The area is heavily urbanised and any crash (inside or outside of a stadium) will kill thousands of people.
The only ones who´ll have a better chance of survival are the politicians visiting the games.

But I´ve got to say that today I find a Bombay scenario much more likely. Much harder to prevent and much cheaper for the terrorists.

As for the use of the, already overstretched, Army during the Olympics, you should read the comments on the inofficial Britsh Army website (I´m sure you know it already, if not, the name refers to the posterior of the human body).

Jan


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 16):
Come on, you can't possibly use that as an argument! That happened 40 years ago!

and less than 20 years we had the Atlanta Olympics pipe bombing, only a few died but it could have been worse.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2350 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 39):
No, they cannot win. If a terrorist controlled plane has reached the greater London area, it is too late. The area is heavily urbanised and any crash (inside or outside of a stadium) will kill thousands of people.

The difference is, anywhere in Greater London will have a lower population density than whenever the Olympic Stadium is at or near its capacity of 80,000 (that doesn't include competitors and support staff - that could push the figures over 100,000 people - especially on the opening and closing nights, when everyone is there).

So which is it? Bring down the aircraft in an area where the population is on average only 5,000/km^2 (the average of Greater London), or...

Yes, by the time the aircraft reaches Greater London, its too late, but there are still considerations to be made and limitation of damages to be enacted. 5,000 dead is a better figure, forgive me for saying that, than 25,000.


User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3535 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 18):
Instead of parking a missile team on a block of flats in London, why can't they park one of those new type 45 destroyers in the Thames estuary?

The navy keep bleating on about how good it is, with a powerful radar that can detect a flea leaving a dogs backside from 500miles away(OK not quite that good, but you get the point), and the most advanced air defence destroyer ever built and how it can take out multiple targets.

A type 45 could easily deal with any plane that has been hijacked and identified prior to entering UK airspace, but wouldn't be much use if the hijack happened when the plane is on final approach to LHR. This is a point defence strategy to pick up last minute/low level threats.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 38):
If it's Starstreak weapons that are to be employed, it's not like some big missiles are going to be perched on some building, it's a tripod (or vehicle) launched system, that uses a small ultra fast missile that does not have a warhead but 3 small penetrating darts that will wreck a flying target by the sheer speed they impact at (Mach 4 I think).

It still sheds it´s second stage rocket after 1.5 km (which will then come down at speed).

Jan


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 43):
It still sheds it´s second stage rocket after 1.5 km (which will then come down at speed).

They aren't going to be firing them off every five minutes as a deterrent - they are going to be used as a last resort.

Collateral damage from a spent stage falling to earth in that sort of instance is acceptable. The alternative is less acceptable.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

I wonder how the very vocal anti-LHR people are going to find the Typhoon deployment to RAF Northolt?
Think they'll like it?
They will certainly find out what a really loud aircraft sounds like!


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 45):
I wonder how the very vocal anti-LHR people are going to find the Typhoon deployment to RAF Northolt?
Think they'll like it?
They will certainly find out what a really loud aircraft sounds like!

I would like the RAF to get the Harriers back and operational. They were LOUD!

Jan


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2242 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 39):
you should read the comments on the inofficial Britsh Army website (I´m sure you know it already, if not, the name refers to the posterior of the human body).

I do indeed, sadly less of the authentic voice it once was once journalists started quoting from it, leading to more contributions from those not in the know, but still interesting and often funny.
And if a British Squaddie is not complaining/taking the piss, there's something wrong!


User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 893 posts, RR: 5
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 46):
I would like the RAF to get the Harriers back and operational. They were LOUD!

So true. However maybe it's just me, but I find the Typhoon's EJ200 to be MUCH louder than the Pegasus.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2098 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 24):
The better answer would be to find ways to take away the hate toward the UK, USA and other countries that give motivation for terror acts.

I agree. The invasion and ongoing occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq have created huge hostility towards America and now Britain, who hadn't been a target before.
That was Bush's great attitude "You're either with us, or against us", dragging us into a war that we didn't want (the UK public) and which also turned us into an unpopular country within the Middle East (July terror bombings in London).

Then the ongoing lack of support for the Palestinians but 100% backing of Israel by America also twisted the knife.
Having traveled the Middle East, living there and being involved with communities, it all has compounded into a distrust of the West.

Anyway, back to the apartments. I think it's questionable - by arming that block of residential flats with missiles, you are actually turning a residential area into a target. When Hizbollah, Taliban etc operate from within a residential apartment block, the army has called them cowards and have said that civilian casualties have been un avoidable due to the armed groups intertwining them with innocent civilians. But this is exactly what the army plan to do- double standards if you ask me.

Why don't we place the missiles along the British coast- shoot them down over the sea instead of allowing them to overfly a city as densely populated as London. They will crash into the sea rather than houses and people.
I live on the South coast (Sussex) and we have lots of open spaces along the beaches and cliffs where the missiles could be placed. Don't force it onto some poor people. They don't want missiles on their roof, the fact that they can become targets, that their building will be damaged by fire or vibration etc.



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 49):
When Hizbollah, Taliban etc operate from within a residential apartment block, the army has called them cowards and have said that civilian casualties have been un avoidable due to the armed groups intertwining them with innocent civilians. But this is exactly what the army plan to do- double standards if you ask me.

Are you serious? You do realize that tiny little detail that unlike the Hezbollah terrorists the British Army plans no offensive action to be launched from these residential areas and that the missiles are purely defensive measure... regardless how questionable as to it effect.

Quoting raffik (Reply 49):
ongoing lack of support for the Palestinians

Google up how many billions upon billions have been wasted on aid to them.

Quoting raffik (Reply 49):
Having traveled the Middle East, living there and being involved with communities, it all has compounded into a distrust of the West.

Distrust and terrorism are two different things.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 24):
The better answer would be to find ways to take away the hate toward the UK, USA and other countries that give motivation for terror acts.

You would have to probably rewrite that wonderful storybook they all worship, but for the time being enjoy your guilt tripping self-flagellation orgy,


User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):

Distrust and disenchantment have bred frustration and the terrorism

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
Google up how many billions upon billions have been wasted on aid to them.

The US alone provides Israel with $8.2m per day in military aid. Don't you realise that money hasn't been able to freely go into Palestine for about 10 years? It all goes via Israel! Israel control what money goes in, who it goes to and where and how it gets distributed. Unemployment in Israel runs at 6.4%- in the West Bank it runs at 16.5% and in Gaza at 40%. I have met Palestinians who have been forced to drink from puddles and collect rain water from their roofs because they have no running water. People in the south of Lebanon who have had no water because it has been channeled off by Israel , across the border to fill the swimming pools of the wealthy in Kiryat Schmona. It was only in 2009 that Israel allowed TOYS into the "country"- I used the term "country" very loosely, seeing as the state of Palestine hasn't been allowed to operate as such for a number of years. The aid to Israel from the West far exceeds what goes to the starving in Africa, the victims of tragedies in Asia etc. It's these anomalies that have caused such a problem in terrorism. Particularly the atrocities against Palestinians which has caused an Arab wide hatred of the West.

Getting back to the point, there are better places to install a missile base. Would you be pleased to have one of these things in your back garden? The location of this base is now public, and will become a target for any act of terrorism.
We could have warships in the Channel, on the coast etc to stop a hijacked aircraft from entering the country.



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aloges (Reply 32):
They'd do all this without being found out and then fly close enough to the Olympic park to warrant a last-second defence with a ground-based high-velocity missile... and yet they'd be stupid enough to forget about a prominently announced battery of SAMs in the vicinity?

No, they probably wouldn't be that stupid. That is why the MOD/gov't released this information so that it acts as a deterrent.

To me it seems very simple and logical to put these SAMs on the rooves.

With SAM + no threat
stand on roof then pack up and go home. "oh what a waste of money and making people feel like they live in a military state"

Wthout SAM + no threat
...................."We don't feel safe, there's no security"

Without SAM +Threat
747 Crashes into stadium and kills 50,000 people. "Whine Whine Whine, why can't we stop the terrorists"

With Sam + Threat
747 Gets hijacked but then blown up on way to stadium crashes into reisdential area and kills 1000 people. "Why do the army insist on killing civilians"

Basically people love to fucking moan about how everything is wrong. What is the problem with SAMs on these buildings? They will only be used if there is the required threat at which point you get the lesser of two evils. People need to look at it logically.

Fred


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 53, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2052 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 51):
The location of this base is now public, and will become a target for any act of terrorism.

No more than any other location in London, during the games or at any other time.


User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 54, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2033 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 51):
The US alone provides Israel with $8.2m per day in military aid.

And? It's their money and since neither me or you are taxpayers or voters in the US who are we to tell them how their government spends money?

Quoting raffik (Reply 51):
The aid to Israel from the West far exceeds what goes to the starving in Africa, the victims of tragedies in Asia etc.

I would certainly dispute the latter... and Arabs are the last ones with any moral ground to point fingers at the west when it comes to aid to victimis of natural disasters. How much aid THEY send to their fellow muslims (let's not even talk about non-muslims) in Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and elswehere? How much aid the so called muslim world sent to Haiti? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/14/world/main6097735.shtml

Quoting raffik (Reply 51):
It's these anomalies that have caused such a problem in terrorism.

Nonsense. Where does it say that the west should feed every basket case country in the world?
The so called Arab world gets obscene amounts of money from oil so perhaps instead of building stupid things like indoor ski slopes in the middle of desert or funding hate-preaching madrasas from Londonistan to Thailand and everywehere in between they should help in as well. It's outrageous they have the nerve to point fingers at others and use it as excuse for terrorism when they are notoriously stingy.


Quoting raffik (Reply 51):
Unemployment in Israel runs at 6.4%- in the West Bank it runs at 16.5% and in Gaza at 40%.

Cry me a river. I guess the "industry" of making Qassam missiles is not enough to provide employment for everyone and rioting will not feed too many either.

Quoting raffik (Reply 51):
Distrust and disenchantment have bred frustration and the terrorism

That's what their bleeding heart apologists claim. I say Koran breeds terrorism. BTW, you forgot to add the usual about "poverty breeds terrorism"...(that's why well-off Arabs with university degrees committed 9/11, doctors go on a shooting spree against fellow soldiers or try to blow up GLA or a kid from a pampered Nigerian family tries to blow up an airliner)

Quoting raffik (Reply 51):
Would you be pleased to have one of these things in your back garden?

That's not how the question stands. I honestly hope there will be no Olympics, Euro ever held in my country as it is useless waste of taxpayers money for "15 minutes" of dubious fame. That being said, I don't feel qualified to judge whether or not this is the best way how to cope with the potential of airborne terrorist attacks.
I was only pointing out to your by all means tasteless claim that the British Army installing SAMs to counter potential airborne threat is basically the same as Hezbollah launching against offensive actions against Israel (courtesy of impotent Lebanese government not being able/willing to exercise soverignty over huge chunk of its country) and then bravely hiding among civilians not to get their asses nailed by the IDF.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 52):
Basically people love to fucking moan about how everything is wrong. What is the problem with SAMs on these buildings? They will only be used if there is the required threat at which point you get the lesser of two evils.

Well said.   


User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 55, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2013 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 54):
impotent Lebanese government not being able/willing to exercise soverignty over huge chunk of its country

Were you actually aware that Hizbollah were voted in to the government? Judging by your comment, you probably were not. The whole creation of Hizbollah is down to the continued occupation of Palestinian land by Israel and the fact that many hundreds of thousands of people remain in refugee limbo in Lebanon, unable to return "home".
I lost family in the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, plus again in the 2006 attack by Israel. My father's family home, once a beautiful arched villa set amongst lemon and orange groves was hit, not once, but twice by an Israeli jet. It had stood there hundreds of years and posed no threat the Israel, neither did my two aunts who were sheltering inside.


Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 54):
I say Koran breeds terrorism

Please provide us all with one line of the Koran which advocated violence and terrorism. The Koran teaches love and harmony, yet , like the Bible or any other religious scriptures, when used by extremists, everything is taken out of context. I have personally read the bible, although I am an atheist, and nowhere does it say that people cannot listen to music or women should be covered. It is the religious nuts who mis interpret the readings.

Everything you say really leads me to believe that you have the utmost hatred towards people of the Muslim faith or of Arab descent and smacks of racism and I find it very disturbing. If you wish to continue to argue over the above, do it in a private message or let's leave it here. You wanted to explore the reason behind terrorism yet fail to see it from any other view point than your own. Out of respect for the original poster, feel free to email me directly at raffik@btopenworld.com and I will quite happily discuss it there. Any other postings here, with regard to what happens in the middle east is another matter.

Back to the subject at hand. I listened to several residents of the building on the BBC yesterday and not one of them is happy to have this installation on their roof. There is a risk of fire and structural damage with any missile launch, especially from a building as old as this. I travel regularly to London and the area is surrounded by brown sites, where the army could build their own tower to launch their missiles from.
I don't live in an apartment, but if somebody forcefully acquisitioned my roof to load with explosives and radar equipment, and didn't let me have any say over it whatsoever, I can assure you that I would feel more threatened than safe.
And that is what the residents of that apartment building are saying. They do not want it



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 56, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2015 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 55):

Were you actually aware that Hizbollah were voted in to the government?

As were nazis and communists in several instances. Just as with Hamas it does not mean they are not a terrorist entity.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 57, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2016 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 55):
Please provide us all with one line of the Koran which advocated violence and terrorism. The Koran teaches love and harmony
Quote:

Summary Answer:
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's many calls to violence according to what their own moral preconceptions find justificable. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.


The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:293, also). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad (Arabic).

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similitude. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners," Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. "But if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."

Quran (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.


From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"

Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"

Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2013 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting raffik (Reply 55):
I listened to several residents of the building on the BBC yesterday and not one of them is happy to have this installation on their roof.

Of course they said that, they get their chance to moan on the bloody telly and the news people want a story, they aren't giong to interview the people who say "yeah its fine, they probably won't need to use them"  
Quoting raffik (Reply 55):
There is a risk of fire and structural damage with any missile launch, especially from a building as old as this.

"STOP STOP STOP!!!! You can't possibly save tens of thousands of lives beczase this old building has a small chance of a fire breaking out" Apparently the safe guarding of these buildings from a minimal risk is more important to you than the safety of the people attending the olympics? These things will only get fired if thousands of lives are in danger, at that point whether these buildings are peoples homes or what they are of minor concern.

Quoting raffik (Reply 55):
I travel regularly to London and the area is surrounded by brown sites, where the army could build their own tower to launch their missiles from.

Or you could all stop fucking moaning on about some Army chaps who will be on the top of a few tower blocks for a couple of weeks. If they build towers all people will do is say "Look at all the expense of building these temporary towers everywhere" plus they would stick out like a sore thumb for protestors etc.

Quoting raffik (Reply 55):
I don't live in an apartment, but if somebody forcefully acquisitioned my roof to load with explosives and radar equipment, and didn't let me have any say over it whatsoever, I can assure you that I would feel more threatened than safe.

Because that's exactly what they are doing isn't it, carrying tens of tons of explosives and huge radars up there ready to blow up anything that moves including the building they are on! Have you even read about these missile systems? They are small, with small explosive charges and they don't even use radar they use a laser tracking device so you better go and do some research.

Quoting raffik (Reply 55):
And that is what the residents of that apartment building are saying. They do not want it

They may well not, there are many things that I do not like the government doing, My fiance hates the military jets flying low over her house as it scares one of her horses but she understands that there is more to it than what one person wwants even if that is the people it affects.

People need to understand that some things that effect them may not benefit them directly and learn to STOP FUCKING MOANING!

Fred


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2001 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):

And in return, you could equally find references to war being required against non-believers in the Bible - you should see some of the stuff in there...

Religion is what you make of it. Every muslim I know is as aggressive as any christian I know.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 60, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1995 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 59):
And in return, you could equally find references to war being required against non-believers in the Bible - you should see some of the stuff in there...


1) Is it a general, open-ended instruction, as in "go forth and fight them wherever you may find them", or specific to a particular event in history, such as the sacking of Jericho?

2) Are any of these in the New Testament? As any Christian will tell you, the important stuff is in the New Testament - the Old Testament is in the Bible mainly for historical perspective and background leading up to "the main event", which is the New Testament.

And while followers of each religion might have their own flaws and dispositions towards violence, how about looking at the seminal persons at the center of each religion. Both religions say that these are the people we should strive to emulate in our own lives. What would each do, if offended, or attacked? From the Bible, Christ would probably turn the other cheek, and forgive his attacker. From the Quran, we have examples of Muhammed, after being offended by some insult, killing the person and his family, such as Uqba. Which do you think is worth following?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 61, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1989 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
1) Is it a general, open-ended instruction, as in "go forth and fight them wherever you may find them", or specific to a particular event in history, such as the sacking of Jericho?

Little things like this:

Quote:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

And this:

Quote:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)


Doesn't sound great does it?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
2) Are any of these in the New Testament? As any Christian will tell you, the important stuff is in the New Testament - the Old Testament is in the Bible mainly for historical perspective and background leading up to "the main event", which is the New Testament.

Mmmmm Im afraid not - Jesus himself says many many times that the Old Testament should form the very core of his followers beliefs and actions, he did not abolish or reject it, or ask for his followers to ignore it.

He is quoted over and over in the Bible as using the Old Testament as the basis for his teaching, and saying his followers should also be reading and following the laws given in it.

And I'm a Christian  
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
Which do you think is worth following?

Who I think is worth following is a biased answer, because Ive already made my choice - however, it is to be noted that Christianity is one of those rarist of rare things, a non-violent religion. Islam is hardly the first, nor the last, religion that has violence at is core.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 62, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1976 times:

I don't want to get into the intractable Mid East thing, however comparing housing, for a very short time, some short range AA missiles in half a dozen sites around London, of which some might be atop buildings, just for the duration of the biggest security operation this country had ever seen, to the use a crude ground to air rockets launched against civilians from residential areas in Palestine, is about as wrong headed, if not twisted, as you can get.

Bluntly, the best way to prevent these sorts of measures in the future is for terrorists to lose their long obsession with using aircraft, usually packed with passengers, as missiles or just to blow up.
This did not start in Sept 2001 and has been attempted since several times.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 63, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 62):
comparing housing, for a very short time, some short range AA missiles in half a dozen sites around London, of which some might be atop buildings, just for the duration of the biggest security operation this country had ever seen, to the use a crude ground to air rockets launched against civilians from residential areas in Palestine, is about as wrong headed, if not twisted, as you can get.

I couldn't agree more with that.


User currently offlineraffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 58):
STOP FUCKING MOANING!

All very well for you to say that, if the Olympics were hosted in Yorkshire (!!!) and somebody wanted to set up adhoc military presence on your roof including missiles, I think you may object to it also.. I have military jets flying near where I live too, which is fine. I have no problem with that because it doesn't cause me any problems. However, if the army forcibly took charge of my roof, insisted on stacking it with tons of highly charged missiles then that is an entirely different matter. And what makes it worse.. and I see that you are in Yorkshire, so unsure whether or not you travel to this part of London or not, but that apartment block is surrounded by vast areas (for London) of brown field site, i.e, areas suitable for a proper army presence, where they can build a tower, put in a few tanks if they need without having to endanger a large residential block.

Also, I'm not a prude, but there no need for the swearing thanks, it makes you come across as juvenile and contravenes the forum guidelines on appropriate language use.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 60):
Which do you think is worth following?

That website that you sourced for your reference is THE single most racist website I have ever had the misfortune to subject my eyes to. Absolutely disgraceful. Speaking from one person to another, I have visited the Middle East extensively and it is full of warm and welcoming people. The FEW extremists that are in operation in Pakistan and Iran do not represent the vast majority of these people. I could find you, within a few moments of googling, an anti Christian, anti Jewish website like you posted with similarly hateful content.

It's a shame that most Americans, such as yourself, have no truthful insight of the Middle East. You are bombarded with anti Mid East rhetoric from your pro Israeli governments and if you have traveled (many Americans don't even hold passports) you probably haven't seen enough of the Middle East for me to respect anything you have to say on the matter.
[



Happy -go- lucky kinda guy!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1841 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting raffik (Reply 64):
I have no problem with that because it doesn't cause me any problems.



And how does having some military chaps on the roof of an apartment block cause problems?

But the point is that it doesn't cause you problems, my point was that the jets do cause my fiance problems but she understands that it is for the greater good.

The Idea of having them there is so that they are not needed

Quoting raffik (Reply 64):
insisted on stacking it with tons of highly charged missiles



You clearly haven't looked up the missiles to be used then, they have very small charges in then so to say there will be tons of highly charged missiles is frankly misleading.

Quoting raffik (Reply 64):
All very well for you to say that, if the Olympics were hosted in Yorkshire (!!!)

I Wish they were!! I would hapily have 10 times as many military personell around if I could have one of the greatest spectacles in the world on my doorstep. I would be very grateful for it! The people of London should be proud to be part of it.

When I was younger we allowed members of the british army to camp and perform part of their exercise they were undertaking on our land.

Quoting raffik (Reply 64):
and I see that you are in Yorkshire, so unsure whether or not you travel to this part of London or not, but that apartment block is surrounded by vast areas (for London) of brown field site, i.e, areas suitable for a proper army presence

I am indeed from yorkshire and I have travelled to london many times but building a tower on a brownfield site is like a magnet for protesters (not always peaceful) to cause disruption and perhaps injury by simply cutting a leg off. How much does said tower cost? how long to build, what hazard will they cause to the public?

I believe also that they havent simply chosen the towers at random and they are positioned due to the approaches to Heathrow so that brown field sites whilst available may not be suitably positioned. But putting tanks in the middle of london? I don't think the people that are needed to be stopped will be coming in panzers.

I see though that you would rather have the risk the terrorist attack killing thousands though so we'll leave it at that.

Fred


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9158 posts, RR: 29
Reply 66, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Just read today the RAF is stationing Typhoons at Northold for A & DAY MANEUVRE: Now, that will be loud.

Quoting aloges (Reply 35):
While they're at it, why not redevelop the area cleared by the crash as a reliever airport for LHR?

Crikey, what a splendit idea.   Which excuse can we find to flatten Floersheim?



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 67, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1812 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 64):
That website that you sourced for your reference is THE single most racist website I have ever had the misfortune to subject my eyes to. Absolutely disgraceful. Speaking from one person to another, I have visited the Middle East extensively and it is full of warm and welcoming people.

I have spent plenty of time in the Middle East, thank you very much - particularly Jordan and Egypt. You are correct - many wonderful people there. But as the website you despise says clearly - the problem is not the people, it's the ideology.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 68, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1807 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 67):
the problem is not the people, it's the ideology.

Its not even the ideology in whole, its the ideology some people push for their own gains and power.

Is Christianity at fault when some priests decide to use their position and power to abuse the children in their care? Or when some fundamentalist Christians pipe bomb a pro-choice clinic? No, in those situations we blame the individuals.

The issue with Islam is just on a larger scale, but its the same issue at the most basic.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1797 times:

What can the SAM site achieve that a 24/7 patrol of Eurofighter Typhoons armed with air-to-air missiles can't? Eurofighters are much more aesthetically pleasing and their presence demonstrates Britain's power and prestige (which is usually an important reason that nations want to host the Olympics).


Someone repaint ZK-PBG!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1793 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 69):

What can the SAM site achieve that a 24/7 patrol of Eurofighter Typhoons armed with air-to-air missiles can't?

Immediacy - if a plane is determined to be hijacked at the very last minute, and diverts from a holding pattern over Heathrow or Gatwick, then its travel time to the Olympic sites is measured in single minutes - getting a QRA aircraft up and carrying out an interception would take longer than that.

We do not have enough aircraft to have a permanent CAP flying over London while the Olympics are on - there will be patrols, but there will be long periods of time when there are no QRAs in the air.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 69):
Eurofighters are much more aesthetically pleasing and their presence demonstrates Britain's power and prestige (which is usually an important reason that nations want to host the Olympics).

They are also noisier, more expensive to operate and you don't want one crashing in the middle of London due to a technical fault.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9158 posts, RR: 29
Reply 71, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

We had this issue when German parliament debated the hi-jack situation and the shooting down of civil airliners as a possible "defense". I am not going into details of that discussion now, but simple commoon sense tells that whatever is shot down will crate some kind of devastation and deaths on the ground, plus -and that is a definite number, the passengers(/crew.

In that case you will never find out whether the hi-jack was really a terrorist act or some idiot wanting his famous 15 minutes. Now, in case the secret services knew the potential terrorists, it would have been their job not to let them board an airliner in first place.

BTW, the issue was quietly buried because virtually all the German Air Force fighter pilots said that they would not carry out an order to shoot down an airliner. Our consitution guarantees them that right, they would not be court martialed, not demoted. I cannot imagine that UK soliers would carry out such orders. Intercepting yes, shooting down, no.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 72, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1774 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 71):

I doubt that any military man would not carry out orders to shoot down a civil passenger plane if its obvious the plane means harm.

Theres never going to be a situation where a plane goes out of communication (or squawks the hijack code), and then is shot down while at 35,000ft on its planned route (or a normal civil route) - there is always going to be other considerations, such as has it deviated from its route considerably, is it losing height in a deliberate fashion, is it obviously aiming for the center of Berlin at 5,000ft etc etc etc.

I think people don't give these sorts of situations enough "common sense" thought.

What would cause more devastation - allowing the plane to hit its chosen target, or shooting it down in a controlled fashion (knowing where you are over, knowing what populations are below you, allowing for the fact that shooting down an airliner over the outskirts of New York is going to put less people at risk than allowing it to ram into the World Trade Center for example). After all, American Airlines flight 587 came down in a residential area in 2001, and only killed 5 people on the ground.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9158 posts, RR: 29
Reply 73, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 72):
I doubt that any military man would not carry out orders to shoot down a civil passenger plane if its obvious the plane means harm

well, how can you tell it is obvious, especially in a situation that was mentioned here - leaving the holding pattern. Having flown to LHR numerous times over the years with usually the bored look downwards from a holding pattern, there is no area where you can shoot down an aircraft "controlled" without causing harm on the ground.

This situation was discussed over and over in Germany, the pilots said that they would not obey an order to shoot down an airliner on an "assumption", .

It is a matter of the secret services, of profiling and whatever else tools they have to prevent such attacks.

In reality, the threat we have right now are Breiviks or that guy who shot the US soldiers at Frankfurt airport. They do not have any accomplices they share their intentions with, it happens in their minds only.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 74, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1769 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 73):
well, how can you tell it is obvious, especially in a situation that was mentioned here - leaving the holding pattern. Having flown to LHR numerous times over the years with usually the bored look downwards from a holding pattern, there is no area where you can shoot down an aircraft "controlled" without causing harm on the ground.

But there are places you can shoot them down and cause *less* harm on the ground than intended. Say for example, a mile from the Olympic Stadium rather than allowing them to hit the Olympic Stadium...

And making the determination that an A330 flying at 5,000ft, descending, traveling toward a populated area and not responding to radio or visual cues is hostile is much easier than when its at 35,000ft, steady and not responding to radio or visual cues.

Commercial airline pilots know where they should be, and are rarely where they shouldn't be. In situations such as this, when there is a clearly designated exclusion zone, pilots are *very* aware of it.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 73):
This situation was discussed over and over in Germany, the pilots said that they would not obey an order to shoot down an airliner on an "assumption", .

I trust that those pilots would be fine with thousands of deaths on their hands then, rather than a few hundred? If they disobeyed such an order and another 9/11 scenario played out, then they should suffer the consequences of that refusal.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9158 posts, RR: 29
Reply 75, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1747 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 74):
But there are places you can shoot them down and cause *less* harm on the ground than intended. Say for example, a mile from the Olympic Stadium rather than allowing them to hit the Olympic Stadium...

This is a bad movie scenario, sorry. After 9/11 the secret services of this world should have gotten their acts together, if they had that pre 9711 nothing would have happened since they had all these bastards on the radar. This is much more effective than anything of this star wars BS.

On top of that, no flying school nowadays can train any potential terrorist, cockpit doors are enforced, with all these additional security it is highly unlikely that anything like 9/11 can happen again. In addition, there are safety zones, flights have to be cleared,.

Even if a terrorist manages to get on an aircraft, armed, what can he do?

Quoting moo (Reply 74):
I trust that those pilots would be fine with thousands of deaths on their hands then, rather than a few hundred?

It wuld hardly make a difference. What really would make a difference is forcing a pilot to shoot down an aircraft with 200 innocent people and finding out afterwards that the hi-jack was a hoax. I am glad that my country chose a way to make it possible for soldiers and policemen not to blindly follow orders but to follow their own judgement. we had enough of the other version.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1722 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):

The titanic didn't really need a full quota of lifeboats as it was never going to sink and I don't need car insurance because I will never crash.  

Fred


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 77, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):
This is a bad movie scenario, sorry.

Any more than flying aircraft into skyscrapers...?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):
After 9/11 the secret services of this world should have gotten their acts together, if they had that pre 9711 nothing would have happened since they had all these bastards on the radar. This is much more effective than anything of this star wars BS.

Sure, because the new and improved intelligence services of the world managed to prevent:

202 dead in Bali, 2002
41 dead in Morocco, 2003
34 dead in Saudi Arabia, 2003
60 dead including the British Consul in Turkey, 2003
191 dead, 1,800 injured in Madrid, 2004
52 dead in London, 2005

And thats just a few examples of major terrorist activities against westerners in a couple of short years - I didn't even bother including the several hundred dead in India or Pakistan or in other countries, or anything after 2005.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):
On top of that, no flying school nowadays can train any potential terrorist,

Yup, because every terrorist wanting to fly just turns up, shows his "Im a Terrorist" credentials and gets turned away.

I learned to fly three years ago - no one bothered checking my background.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):
cockpit doors are enforced,

Nothing is impenetrable.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):
with all these additional security it is highly unlikely that anything like 9/11 can happen again. In addition, there are safety zones, flights have to be cleared,.

I take it you haven't noticed how easy it is to get stuff past TSA, or even in as a ground worker these days then? I've accidentally ended up on a flight with my pen knife, and that was from Heathrow!

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):
Even if a terrorist manages to get on an aircraft, armed, what can he do?

Terrorists are ingenious.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):
It wuld hardly make a difference. What really would make a difference is forcing a pilot to shoot down an aircraft with 200 innocent people and finding out afterwards that the hi-jack was a hoax.

If the hoaxer put the plane in a situation where the decision was to be taken, its well beyond a hoax - what are we talking about here, pulling up at the last minute and radioing "haha! fooled ya!"

No, thats just rubbish.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 75):
I am glad that my country chose a way to make it possible for soldiers and policemen not to blindly follow orders but to follow their own judgement. we had enough of the other version.

So the fact that your soldiers and policemen are there to ... defend you, and they ... choose not to just because the weapon they are defending against happens to have civilians onboard is something to applaud? They seem to have arbitrarily devalued the lives of everyone who happens to not be on that aircraft in the process...


User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 61):
He is quoted over and over in the Bible as using the Old Testament as the basis for his teaching, and saying his followers should also be reading and following the laws given in it.


Sure, but not it the way you are insinuating:

Summary:
*Jesus references different individual parts of the Ten Commandments on four separate occasions (listed in order of Jesus referencing them):

Exodus 20:13/Deut 5:17 – You shall not commit murder (referenced twice)
Exodus 20:14/Deut 5:18 – You shall not commit adultery (referenced twice)
Exodus 20:12/Deut 5:16 – Honor your father and mother (referenced twice)
Exodus 20:15/Deut 5:19 – You shall not steal (referenced once)
Exodus 20:16/Deut 5:20 – You shall not give false testimony (referenced once)

*Jesus references Leviticus 19:18 twice:

“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord.”

*But there is only one exact theme that Jesus references on three separate occasions: Hosea 6:6 twice, and its parallel, Isaiah 29:13 once:

Hosea 6:6 – “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”


Isaiah 29:13 - “The Lord says: These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.”

Conclusion:

I don’t see how it is any coincidence that Jesus separately quoted, more than any others recorded in all of Scripture the 1) Ten Commandments, 2) an expectation of love over judgment, and 3) a throw-down-the-gauntlet type of command to usher in a new paradigm of what it means to live an authentic, God-honoring faith.

Thus, if I was a Jesus-follower willing to bet my whole life and eternity on something, I would say that through these three not-so-subtly repeated messages of Jesus I have a pretty good idea of what overarching themes our Savior expects us to concentrate on. The question is, do his followers have enough bold faith to actually live out such principles to their fullest? And when we do, I know with everything I am that we will faithfully fulfill the Lord’s will to establish kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven as best as we possibly can.

http://www.redletterchristians.org/w...-quoted-the-ot-and-why-it-matters/

Jesus clarified the Old Testament, he did not glorify war and killing of non-believers.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3868 posts, RR: 5
Reply 79, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 78):
Sure, but not it the way you are insinuating:

Can I ask, are you just googling or have you ever studied theology and the Bible?

Because Jesus also says things like this:

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).

"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least [by those] in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great [by those] in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19).

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)

The "law" being what we call today the Old Testament.

To a theologian and a Christian who has studied the Bible, Christ never renounces nor removes the OT from the teachings or the requirements - he gave the new covenant of passage into heaven through belief in him as the Son of God etc etc but the ways and means by which you are to live your life and honour your God still encompasses the things laid down in the OT.

BTW I use "your" "we" etc in the "royal sense", I don't mean for it to be preachy or that Im pushing a religion on you.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9158 posts, RR: 29
Reply 80, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 77):
So the fact that your soldiers and policemen are there to ... defend you, and they ... choose not to just because the weapon they are defending against happens to have civilians onboard is something to applaud? They seem to have arbitrarily devalued the lives of everyone who happens to not be on that aircraft in the process...

You haven't understood what I said, obviously. I spare myself using your "discussion" method ridiculing my opinion by ripping my sttement apart and putting stupid remarks underneath. Using your logic, you should stay in your house because the sky might fall down on you. But then, beware, the house has a roof which might cave in.

German police has done a fine job several times by detecting terrorist attacks and preventing attacks before they could take place. We have had dumb luck as well because terrorists are not the brightest bulbs in the box.

I think a lot of people in the UK are not happy with the fact that missiles are stationed in populated areas and fighter jets cruising overhead. We have had big sports events in Germany as well, soccer world champoionship for instance. There was adequate security, but we did not take the fun out of it.

What#s planned in london seems to be an overkill.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineDano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

One thing for sure...

Those buildings which get selected, if the plan gets the green light, won't have to worry about crime especially when their is a shed load of squaddies armed with SA80's around the building.


So if it goes ahead, who has the final say to green light a launch if the worst happens?



Children should only be allowed on aircraft if 1. Muzzled and heavily sedated 2. Go as freight
User currently offlinevegetables2001 From UK - England, joined Mar 2012, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1576 times:

It's all just PR bs window dressing for the unwashed masses, it's of little use security wise.

Even though I'd love to the Olympics turn into an unmitigated farce (without loss of life/injury, obviously) I'd bet my house that planes flying into structures by muslims will NOT be the way the next terrorist outrage occurs.



A306,319,333 ATR72 BAC113/5, B703/704,717,721,732/3/4/5/7/8,741/1/4,757,763,773/E, DC8-6,9-3/5,10-30, DC106
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 83, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1544 times:

Quoting vegetables2001 (Reply 82):
Even though I'd love to the Olympics turn into an unmitigated farce (without loss of life/injury, obviously) I'd bet my house that planes flying into structures by muslims will NOT be the way the next terrorist outrage occur

While I personally think the games should stay in Greece - they need the money for a start and since 2004 have the infrastructure - despite having a strong dislike of much of what the I.O.C. does and no actual interest in the sports, a lot of people do, many have worked long and hard for it, for them this will be a big moment in their lives.
So I don't wish it to be a 'farce', I'd hate to go through life with those petty and resentful attitudes.
It also sounds like an argument lost.

One hack who is a resident at a proposed site, started blogging resentfully about the exercise, bleating about 'missiles being left unguarded' (despite troops being in the view of the videos he took), how dangerous it all is, without checking, or asking anyone who would know, whether if for this exercise they were not actually dummy 'drill' rounds. Which of course they were, as common sense alone would inform.


User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5669 posts, RR: 20
Reply 84, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Quoting raffik (Reply 64):
most racist website

Since when does one's CHOICE to follow certain ideology has anything to do with race? As they say... don't shoot the messenger.
.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 71):
BTW, the issue was quietly buried because virtually all the German Air Force fighter pilots said that they would not carry out an order to shoot down an airliner. Our consitution guarantees them that right, they would not be court martialed, not demoted.

As much as I usually agree with you I think this is just bizarre that military is being given such a huge slack. After all it's a military with a certain chain of command, not a holiday club with elective activities. I know this is probably meant to be yet another safeguard against whatever Germany went through in the past but when you hear that on the other hand German soldiers are automatically subject to prosecution for manslaughter whenever they shoot some Taliban savage in self defense I think there is much more pressing concern than the military being perpetrator of some gross inhustices: concern about how much say the pacifists should have before they turn the military into a total farce.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 85, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 84):
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 71):
BTW, the issue was quietly buried because virtually all the German Air Force fighter pilots said that they would not carry out an order to shoot down an airliner. Our consitution guarantees them that right, they would not be court martialed, not demoted.

As much as I usually agree with you I think this is just bizarre that military is being given such a huge slack. After all it's a military with a certain chain of command, not a holiday club with elective activities. I know this is probably meant to be yet another safeguard against whatever Germany went through in the past but when you hear that on the other hand German soldiers are automatically subject to prosecution for manslaughter whenever they shoot some Taliban savage in self defense I think there is much more pressing concern than the military being perpetrator of some gross inhustices: concern about how much say the pacifists should have before they turn the military into a total farce.

There was also the little thing of a supreme court decision which said that it is not the government´s job to decide which set of innocent s to sacrifice (crew and passengers vs. people on the ground). They said that if it was totally clear that there was nobody in the plane but terrorists and there were no people on the ground endangered (e.g. over the sea or an uninhabited place), the government could shoot down any aircraft, but not if any type of innocent third party people were going to be endangered. The next problem is that in Germany the military can only operate inside the country in functions like disaster aid (constitutional limits). So once the aircraft is inside German airspace theoretically the interception would have to be carried out by the police under police rules.
Now the police don´t have any fast jets nor exists there a way to carry out an arrest in the air.

Jan


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9158 posts, RR: 29
Reply 86, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 84):
As much as I usually agree with you I think this is just bizarre that military is being given such a huge slack.

Jan explained it already and you have mentioned the reason why it is so. Air Policing is actually done by the air force, we have two squadrons, one in the north at Wittmund and the other in the south at Neuburg/Donau IIRC. They job is to intercept unidentified aircraft and that happens almost weekly., I guess we are much better prepared than the US was on 9/11.

But, and as you rightfully said, based on our history, we have taken the - I use the German word "Kadavergehorsam" out of the books, Officers and ranks are citizens in uniform. Fighter pilots usually are captains and majors who have gone through extensive training and they are certainly able to judge a situation. At the end of the day, it would be their personal decision but certainly no commanding officer no interior or defense minister could order a pilot to shoot down an airliner and that is good.

Quoting vegetables2001 (Reply 82):
I'd bet my house that planes flying into structures by muslims will NOT be the way the next terrorist outrage occurs.

I sign that. There are far greater dangers and it always comes back to the point that the secret services have to do the job. When anti aircraft missiles or intercept fighters have to do it, someone has made a mistake before.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13967 posts, RR: 63
Reply 87, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1426 times:

I forgot to mention that the hearing at Germany´s constitutional court (the highest court in Germany) about the law allowing the shooting down of civilian aircraft if a terrorist threat is assumed, was initiated by several groups. One group was a professional association of soldiers. They wanted to make sure that, if they would obey orders to shoot down a passenger plane, they wouldn´t be later taken to court for homicide.

Jan


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8787 posts, RR: 24
Reply 88, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1340 times:

I thought this was pretty good:




Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13166 posts, RR: 78
Reply 89, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

I live right near LHR, this weekend on several occasions I've heard the Typhoons overhead, not seen though, they are at 2000-4000 feet apparently and it's been solid overcast cloud the whole time.
When you almost tune out the sound a civil high bypass engines by being so used to them, hearing the power-plant of a military fast jet is unfamiliar.
First supersonic aircraft here since November 2003 when the last Concorde left LHR.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Can A Video Tape Be Turned Into DVD? posted Fri Oct 24 2003 03:26:48 by SWA TPA
Taj Mahal To Be Converted Into Shopping Mall posted Tue Jun 17 2003 14:04:02 by B747-437B
New Infiniti G Sedan To Be Based On Benz C-class posted Sat Apr 14 2012 15:53:33 by stasisLAX
Macroeconomics Ought To Be Taught At High School posted Thu Dec 9 2010 21:40:56 by AR385
Obama's Granny Prayed For Him To Be Muslim posted Fri Nov 26 2010 17:54:36 by kevin
Veteran's Benefits To Be Cut? posted Tue Sep 21 2010 08:33:18 by Ken777
Oz Election: Embarrassed To Be Australian posted Fri Aug 20 2010 02:26:47 by ozglobal
Demand Media Allows Users To Be Spied On? posted Sun Aug 15 2010 09:07:54 by greasespot
Saudis Want Mecca Time To Be The New GMT posted Wed Aug 11 2010 09:02:39 by A380US
MLB: Texas To Be Sold Or File For Ch. 11? posted Wed Aug 4 2010 12:07:45 by AirframeAS