• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

London 2012 Olympics security! Too much?

jamesrage said:
Its a blatant waste of money.Does Al Qeada have a airforce, stormed a country by sea, or send in troops?
Click to expand...

They're very cunning. They might steal a plane or two and crash them into something.
 
PeteEU said:
Day 1 of the first arrivals. Day one of the first security failures. Police and military have had to step in to provide security in areas that the private company was suppose to secure... no one turned up from the private company basically.

So far the London Olympics have only shown us not to outsource security to private companies.
Click to expand...

good thing it hasn't started yet then! x
 
Ehhhh personally i think its a bit much........ But hey UK has slowly been turning into a police state... As long as with us...
 
jamesrage said:
Its a blatant waste of money.Does Al Qeada have a airforce, stormed a country by sea, or send in troops?
Click to expand...

Twin Towers by air, USS Cole by Sea. Please stop me if im missing anything.
 
This is just my personal preference but I'm kind of a private person, so it's not my idea of fun going to the olympics. I expect a certain loss of privacy when going out, but with cameras and military presence everywhere (I realize Beijing was the same), London is not on my to-visit list. Is this event even worth conducting if this is necessary? Is the risk worth it? What's the point in allowing spectators if they can't enjoy themselves? I don't know that 9-11 should have changed the mentality here so much as 1996 and those killings in the 80s. The Olympics is a high profile target period, so I get that it's necessary to have some security. I do think this is excessive though and should focus instead on intelligence and traditional screening at the stadiums.
 
Maybe they're worried about the 2010 Rockefeller Foundation prediction?
 
Excessive. Needlessly, extravagantly, popularly excessive.

The hubris of the government about their "preparations" seem like an out-and-out invitation for troublemakers.

Upping security during a major event is a given. Being quite so loud and public and cocky about it makes me think that they're less interested in actual safety - And more interested in what idiot tabloid readers think of them.

All Theresa May has done is reassure the masses that she's checked the wardrobe, and looked under the bed - And that she found no monsters. Mind you, it cost a couple billion £££, but who cares, right...?!

Nothing but overwrought hysteria. But it's government sanctioned, so it's OK! :doh
 
The US team had a four hour bus trip on their 45minute journey from the airport...The bus driver (a local) got lost, despite one lane of the motorway being being set aside for Olympic traffic only! The Aussies too! (their driver could't work the sat-nav!)
 
Manc Skipper said:
The US team had a four hour bus trip on their 45minute journey from the airport...The bus driver (a local) got lost, despite one lane of the motorway being being set aside for Olympic traffic only! The Aussies too! (their driver could't work the sat-nav!)
Click to expand...

At least they didn't go into overdrive and stop the buses at gunpoint! Clearly none of the passengers were in smoking cessation.
 
This type of security SNAFU is the reason why I go out of my way to avoid most large group events. Especially in places that would restrict or deny my RTKBA. I just don't trust the vast majority of the "security" firms out there. Here in the United States we still have no comprehension of what SECURITY really is, and probably never will, unfortunately.
 
Manc Skipper said:
They're very cunning. They might steal a plane or two and crash them into something.
Click to expand...


The surface to air missiles might make sense in that case.But what about the helicopters, the commandos in boats with mounted machine guns and all the other troops?
 
Higgins86 said:
Twin Towers by air, USS Cole by Sea. Please stop me if im missing anything.
Click to expand...

Are the Olympics being held in skyscrapers and navy warships?
 
jamesrage said:
Are the Olympics being held in skyscrapers and navy warships?
Click to expand...
diving a plane into the middle of the olympic stadium would likely kill more than the attack on the WTC did. securing the air only would allow for a water based attack as London sits on a very large river called the Thames.

Is the security really too much? possibly, but we will never actually know if it was more than necessary. We will always know when it is less than necessary though.....
 
They won't get up the river, this is where the helicopters live...

2974-thumb-640x480.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom