http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16195861
QuoteUp to 13,500 military personnel will help to provide security at the London 2012 Olympic Games, the Ministry of Defence has announced.
Security would be police-led but the military would make a "significant contribution", the MoD said.
Some 5,000 troops will support the police, up to 7,500 will provide venue security and 1,000 will provide logistical support.
Yet another reason to leave London this summer. I don't want PTSD suffering Iraq/Afghan vets having an episode near me and deciding to shoot up the place.
The government is defending the role of using troops because it is in line with what China provided at Beijing. Of course that China is an autocratic police state is apparently not an issue for the East Germany of Capitalism that is the UK.
Also completely unmentioned because, SHUSH, it's a state secret! is that the USA will also be providing a large level of security. I am not privy to all the details, but I have people in the UK's Gold Command, who have informed me that at least one US warship will be placed just off the coastline and out of sight, but within range to intervene. London's CIA Station is also infamously the largest in Europe, and who knows how many Blackwater mercs have been signed on as paramilitary personnel for the CIA? In addition to that, I have no doubt a role will be found for the various US military bases dotted around our landscape.
London's going to make the LoC look like a picnic in comparison. This is going to be the single most militarized city in the world in six months.
Oh, this is not going to end well at all.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 18, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
Oh, this is not going to end well at all.
Depends on your definition of "end well".
As long as Cain, Payne, Pix, BB, etc are out of the way or at least don't get mangled, I think it's high time our respective governments came out in the open.
Mostly, I'm curious as to whether or not the citizenry will do shit about it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2011, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 18, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
Oh, this is not going to end well at all.
Depends on your definition of "end well".
As long as Cain, Payne, Pix, BB, etc are out of the way or at least don't get mangled, I think it's high time our respective governments came out in the open.
Mostly, I'm curious as to whether or not the citizenry will do shit about it.
I want them to be safe, too, but I meant for everyone else.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 18, 2011, 06:43:11 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 18, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
Oh, this is not going to end well at all.
Depends on your definition of "end well".
As long as Cain, Payne, Pix, BB, etc are out of the way or at least don't get mangled, I think it's high time our respective governments came out in the open.
Mostly, I'm curious as to whether or not the citizenry will do shit about it.
History indicates that eventually, the citizenry will.
History indicates that there will be an uprising in which a dissident leader will emerge, one who is secretly backed by other world powers for their own purposes. After the deposition of the current corrupt government, this leader will be instated as the dictator-head of the new government, which will be nightmarishly brutal beyond all expectation or imagining. Detractors will be summarily executed. Millions of citizens will be mass-executed or allowed to starve to death to prevent them from protesting. Censorship will be iron-fisted and the majority of the population will be denied access to telecommunication technology. Those who are allowed it will be carefully monitored, with death or banishment from the elite as the punishment for criticism of the regime.
Meanwhile, a few nations will thrive in unprecedented conditions of wealth and power, and will turn a blind eye toward the genocide, famine, and massive human rights violations taking place in what were once some of the world's greatest nations, until a war breaks out that forces them to become involved to protect their interests.
I want to know what they think might happen at the Olympics that would justify the presence of one or more U.S. warships. I mean, I think the real reason is some combination of paranoia, stupidity, and the urge to display their dominance, but I want to know what sort of justification they've come up with.
The UK, unlike the USA has no constitutional arragements forbidding the use of the military in a policing role.
It has always been seen as something of a severe step though. I actually think the military will be, at least, no worse than the London Police, though that is hardly a ringing endorsement.
However, London will be in a state of high security for the duration of the games. In part, I can see there being a legitimate worry that American or Israeli athletes may be attacked by UK-based militants....but to be honest, they could go anywhere the crowds are heavy (which will be everywhere) and detonate themselves. Unless they have two security officers to every one civilian, it's an axiom of policing that you cannot protect everywhere at once.
Furthermore, the presence of the military themselves may invite violence. They are tempting targets for those who subscribe to radical Islamism.
Quote from: deadfong on December 19, 2011, 03:50:21 PM
I want to know what they think might happen at the Olympics that would justify the presence of one or more U.S. warships. I mean, I think the real reason is some combination of paranoia, stupidity, and the urge to display their dominance, but I want to know what sort of justification they've come up with.
Fear of terrorist attacks on the sailing portion of the Olympic Games.
Quote from: Cain on December 19, 2011, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: deadfong on December 19, 2011, 03:50:21 PM
I want to know what they think might happen at the Olympics that would justify the presence of one or more U.S. warships. I mean, I think the real reason is some combination of paranoia, stupidity, and the urge to display their dominance, but I want to know what sort of justification they've come up with.
Fear of terrorist attacks on the sailing portion of the Olympic Games.
Huh. That actually sounds half-way reasonable. I doubt any terrorists would choose to attack the sailboats as opposed to the crowds watching the sailboats, but still.
Well, there have been no explicit threats I am privy to, but I would personally imagine a US warship makes a more tempting target. USS Cole and all that.
I love how what's supposed to be a symbol of world peace and unity is turning into an excuse to be armed to the teeth. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Suu on December 19, 2011, 06:44:24 PM
I love how what's supposed to be a symbol of world peace and unity is turning into an excuse to be armed to the teeth. :horrormirth:
And an excuse to ruin the lives of regular folks, who just happen to live where they want to have their games.
The olympics are a travesty. We should have discontinued them decades ago.
The Games were pretty unpopular when we first entered for the 2012 city.
Since the economic crisis though, they've become insanely unpopular.
Quote from: Cain on December 19, 2011, 07:12:39 PM
The Games were pretty unpopular when we first entered for the 2012 city.
Since the economic crisis though, they've become insanely unpopular.
You took the games from Tampa.
At first we were pissed, now people know better.
First thing I wondered when I read that was whether they'd all leave when the Olympics are over, or whether a bunch will stick around, "just in case".
I think that will largely depend on whether they find wmds or crimes against humanity or terrurists hiding in Iran