Terrorist Lawsuit

[Vindekarr]

People are talking as if this is something new, countries have been murdering those they see as enemies for years. The only difference is how openly it's being done, it's almost as if the U.S wants to create more enemies. As for lawsuits, the idea behind them is to get the government to settle out of court, they know the last thing the government want is their business discussed in a court room.

@Jim

Your first two points are all too true, unfortunately. The third not so much, since the government can claim national security privilege to prevent disclosure of anything they do not want aired in open court. The Homeland security Act of 2002 is fairly broad in terms of what it indemnifies the government for.

 

The U.S government is obviously more organised than ours, our government are being sued by all sorts of degenerates.

 

Didn't they recently get sued for putting up SAMs to defend the olympic complex?

Edited July 23, 2012 by Vindekarr

[JimboUK]

People are talking as if this is something new, countries have been murdering those they see as enemies for years. The only difference is how openly it's being done, it's almost as if the U.S wants to create more enemies. As for lawsuits, the idea behind them is to get the government to settle out of court, they know the last thing the government want is their business discussed in a court room.

@Jim

Your first two points are all too true, unfortunately. The third not so much, since the government can claim national security privilege to prevent disclosure of anything they do not want aired in open court. The Homeland security Act of 2002 is fairly broad in terms of what it indemnifies the government for.

 

The U.S government is obviously more organised than ours, our government are being sued by all sorts of degenerates.

 

Didn't they recently get sued for putting up SAMs to defend the olympic complex?

 

Not sued, residents of a tower block tried to get an injunction to stop the missiles being placed on their roof, they failed.

[Vindekarr]

Oh I see, thanks for clarifying that. The news story in Aus was tower block residents attempting to sue the gov to aboid having a SAM on their roof, which is understandable, but gave no detail.

[JimboUK]

Oh I see, thanks for clarifying that. The news story in Aus was tower block residents attempting to sue the gov to aboid having a SAM on their roof, which is understandable, but gave no detail.

 

Perfectly understandable, I remember the allies criticising Saddam Hussein for putting missile systems in residential areas, seems it's fine for our government to do it.

[HeyYou]

Oh I see, thanks for clarifying that. The news story in Aus was tower block residents attempting to sue the gov to aboid having a SAM on their roof, which is understandable, but gave no detail.

 

Perfectly understandable, I remember the allies criticising Saddam Hussein for putting missile systems in residential areas, seems it's fine for our government to do it.

 

Saddam was expecting to be defending against a nation, one that would hesitate to pound missiles into a civilian area...... The Brits are attempting to defend against terrorist, that are only interested in crashing a plane somewhere interesting.

 

To me, it seems kinda strange that you would want to shoot at something over civilian, heavily populated, areas in any event...... Unless they identify the offending aircraft as hostile a good distance out, the death toll is going to be pretty high whether they shoot it down, or, it actually crashes into its target. Lesser of two evils?

[JimboUK]

 

 

Saddam was expecting to be defending against a nation, one that would hesitate to pound missiles into a civilian area...... The Brits are attempting to defend against terrorist, that are only interested in crashing a plane somewhere interesting.

 

To me, it seems kinda strange that you would want to shoot at something over civilian, heavily populated, areas in any event...... Unless they identify the offending aircraft as hostile a good distance out, the death toll is going to be pretty high whether they shoot it down, or, it actually crashes into its target. Lesser of two evils?

 

If they have to use those missiles then the defences have already failed, shooting down a large aircraft over London would be catastrophic. Anyway I doubt terrorists would use aircraft, the well publicised laughable security on the ground will give them more than enough opportunities.

[HeyYou]

Saddam was expecting to be defending against a nation, one that would hesitate to pound missiles into a civilian area...... The Brits are attempting to defend against terrorist, that are only interested in crashing a plane somewhere interesting.

 

To me, it seems kinda strange that you would want to shoot at something over civilian, heavily populated, areas in any event...... Unless they identify the offending aircraft as hostile a good distance out, the death toll is going to be pretty high whether they shoot it down, or, it actually crashes into its target. Lesser of two evils?

 

If they have to use those missiles then the defences have already failed, shooting down a large aircraft over London would be catastrophic. Anyway I doubt terrorists would use aircraft, the well publicised laughable security on the ground will give them more than enough opportunities.

 

But, aircraft worked so well on 9/11...... and that is the perception that they are trying to defend against...... folks just don't seem to realize, that if you shoot down an aircraft, the key word there is DOWN. All that metal has to hit the ground somewhere......

[JimboUK]

Saddam was expecting to be defending against a nation, one that would hesitate to pound missiles into a civilian area...... The Brits are attempting to defend against terrorist, that are only interested in crashing a plane somewhere interesting.

 

To me, it seems kinda strange that you would want to shoot at something over civilian, heavily populated, areas in any event...... Unless they identify the offending aircraft as hostile a good distance out, the death toll is going to be pretty high whether they shoot it down, or, it actually crashes into its target. Lesser of two evils?

 

If they have to use those missiles then the defences have already failed, shooting down a large aircraft over London would be catastrophic. Anyway I doubt terrorists would use aircraft, the well publicised laughable security on the ground will give them more than enough opportunities.

 

But, aircraft worked so well on 9/11...... and that is the perception that they are trying to defend against...... folks just don't seem to realize, that if you shoot down an aircraft, the key word there is DOWN. All that metal has to hit the ground somewhere......

 

There is a no fly zone and a restricted zone outside that, those will be patrolled by Typhoons, we've already seen a few of them fly over here (we're about 25 miles away). I really can't see them trying that on, not when the security on the ground is so bad.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/23/g4s-x-ray-olympic-games

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/23/g4s-trainee-x-ray-exam

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/18/police-lords-g4s-olympic-staff

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/g4s-guard-waves-undercover-reporter-1153314

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175865/G4S-security-guard-sacked-sleeping-entrance-hotel-Olympians-staying.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173338/London-2012-Olympics-Mail-reporter-experiences-shambolic-G4S-training-centre.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173816/Olympic-security-As-G4S-staff-fail-work-police-hauled-beat-plug-gaps.html

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4430122/Knives-OKas-long-bras-its-not-terrorism.html

 

I could go on forever, the security is a shambles, there's no need for terrorists to bother with the air.

[Aurielius]

But, aircraft worked so well on 9/11...... and that is the perception that they are trying to defend against...... folks just don't seem to realize, that if you shoot down an aircraft, the key word there is DOWN. All that metal has to hit the ground somewhere......

 

True the aircraft comes down but would you prefer them to pick the point of impact? Secondly, after an aircraft is hit by a SAM of any sort it breaks into smaller pieces and most of the fuel explodes at the point of interception which will burn off quite a bit of it, admittedly a small consolation if you are directly in the path of the falling debris.

[HeyYou]

But, aircraft worked so well on 9/11...... and that is the perception that they are trying to defend against...... folks just don't seem to realize, that if you shoot down an aircraft, the key word there is DOWN. All that metal has to hit the ground somewhere......

 

True the aircraft comes down but would you prefer them to pick the point of impact? Secondly, after an aircraft is hit by a SAM of any sort it breaks into smaller pieces and most of the fuel explodes at the point of interception which will burn off quite a bit of it, admittedly a small consolation if you are directly in the path of the falling debris.

 

I watched an automobile engine shred a crowd, and kill 20+ people...... I can't imagine what a jet engine going thru a crowd would do.... considering it is 10 times the size, and weight, not to mention it will be moving MUCH faster. Even without the rest of the jet, that's gonna make a mess. Also, consider the size of possible aircraft that may be used. It is going to take more than one air to air missile to knock down a 747... unless you get a lucky hit, and blow off a wing. Even without fuel, that is a LOT of metal bits coming down. SAM's are more than likely one-shot-kills, but still.... I am thinkin' if it gets to the point of having to fire a SAM, it's way too late in any event. Folks are gonna die. Lots of them.

 

I am thinking a total exclusion zone, and if you fly into it, you are immediately shot down. No questions asked, no radio contact, no warning shots. Cross this line, and you die. End of story. Automated beacons transmitting a warning on a wide range of frequencies wouldn't hurt I suppose.

 

Just out of idle curiosity though, where is Heathrow in relation to the Olympics? Is the village on the approach/departure path of any runways? That would certainly make life interesting.....

 

@Jim_UK. That's just scary. One would think, that given how many YEARS they had to plan for this, they could have done a bit better than what those articles indicate.