|
30 Apr 12 - 04:18 AM (#3345092) Subject: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. I haven't seen anything here about this issue. It does concern our friends in the West, as well as the UK. Apparently, the US insisted, as a prerequisite for taking part in the Olympics, that there be missiles placed to protect the Games venues. As a result, there are to be placements on Blackheath, Oxleas Woods and a privately owned residential building, plus at least three others not yet publicised, of batteries for missiles with a 10 mile range to be used, God forbid, to shoot down any aircraft threatening the Games. This without any consultation of local MPs, or permission sought of the residents. Blackheath is, traditionally, the place where governments wipe out protesting rebels, so this may be historically appropriate. Oxleas Woods is close to a site chosen for a Fougasse projector to flame approaching German tanks during WWII, and of an ackack emplacement, so might have a precedent. The flats site is a water tower with dodgy brickwork. Whatever, the range of the missiles means that if used, and if missing their target, they would probably land in a built up area. If they were to hit their target, it would come down in a built up area. If it were on a trajectory already for the stadium, it might well still hit it anyway. The venues are crossed by planes heading for a) Heathrow, b) City airport, c) Essex. They change direction over London. The time frame during which any unusual change could be observed and acted on would be minute, probably much smaller than the infamous 4 minute warning of Soviet nuclear attack. During WWII, planes were shot down over built up areas, doodlebugs (protodrones) redirected to areas south of London where they might hit people, but fewer people. We were at war, and all in it together. This is not the same. It looks as if, at the dictate of a foreign power, our military are prepared to risk the lives of thousands of ordinary people by using inappropriate technology for a job when we are supposed to be celebrating. Any opinions of this situation? Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 04:24 AM (#3345093) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. And I'm not being anti-American, here. I'm being anti a mind set which makes some people so much more important than other people that their lives are not worth saving. I'm being anti the people who would shift the switch on the train track to kill the one person instead of the five instead of saying that the question is stupid, because it isn't going to happen. It happens to be the US government our government is shifting the blame to. I guess I'm anti-government when governments ignore that bit about governing being of the people, by the people, for the people. Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 04:38 AM (#3345096) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Doug Chadwick Apparently, the US insisted, ..... Any "fact" that begins with the word Apparently should be taken with a large dose of salt. DC |
|
30 Apr 12 - 04:51 AM (#3345098) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. Daily Mail News shopper Guardian (Missed that one - hidden in the sports pages. BBC |
|
30 Apr 12 - 05:03 AM (#3345103) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. Odd, I posted more links than that. Huffington Post ITV Metro BBC again And added... Good enough? I shall have to change my style, apparently. Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 05:03 AM (#3345104) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Keith A of Hertford The attacking plane might be expected to fly into the stadium, killing thousands. If exploded in the air, even over a built up area, fewer deaths might result. The pragmatism of terror. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 05:26 AM (#3345107) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. Might. I dare say that pragmatism would comfort the survivors. Maybe, going back a bit, the Olympics should be held where people don't live. Are the Games worth putting the lives of anyone at risk? Are they worth politicians having to bear the burden of making that sort of decision. I see that Athens and Beijing were also protected by missiles. (Study of Olympic security.) In the case of Athens, supplied by the States. Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 05:32 AM (#3345108) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST Isn't it another case of "Damned if they do, damned if they don't"? If some nutcase flies a large plane into the main stadium, everyone will scream "Why didn't they anticipate this, and have the means ready to shoot it down?". Surely, doing **something** in anticipation of such an awful event is better than doing nothing? It's highly unlikely, but don't think for one second that it couldn't happen - remember our astonishment when the second plane went into the WTC, and it bacame clear that it, and the first one, weren't accidents. But I'm not sure that the roof of an ancient and dodgy-looking water tower is necessarily the best place to site a missile battery - maybe that one needs a re-think? |
|
30 Apr 12 - 05:35 AM (#3345110) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Doug Chadwick Thanks for the links Penny. Only one of your 8 links (the Daily Mail) makes any reference to the United States, saying that the US has privately raised concerns about security. At one point it was offering to send an aircraft carrier to the Thames and is preparing to send up to 1000 agents in the weeks before the games. This is a long way from Apparently, the US insisted ………. , hence the need for salt. DC |
|
30 Apr 12 - 05:35 AM (#3345111) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,Backwoodsman at work sans cookie GUEST above was me. Sorry. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 05:43 AM (#3345113) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Bonzo3legs Terrorists in residential areas - opinions?? |
|
30 Apr 12 - 06:17 AM (#3345124) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Stu I like the fact the MOD say it won't make the building a target. Doh. They've obviously never seen the The Guns of Navarone, or read any book about war. Bloody effin' bloomin' flamin' olympics. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 06:46 AM (#3345136) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,Shimrod There's a handy phrase for use in this sort of situation (i.e. if the missiles are fired and go a bit astray): 'collateral damage'. Works every time! |
|
30 Apr 12 - 06:50 AM (#3345137) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: JohnInKansas Of the first four articles linked above, three do not mention the US at all. The fourth says only that the US expressed concern about security and offered to provide an aircraft carrier nearby. I got too bored with the flames to look at the other links, but the four I did look at were essentially IDENTICAL (with no credit to an original source). The only OBVIOUS conclusion is that plagiarism is acceptable in UK news media(?), which is hardly a surprise but not exactly an end-of-the-world discovery. Depending on the kind(s) of missiles used, most can be, and usually are, set to "explode" or to "inert" themselves if they fail to hit a target**, so the danger to those on the ground is more akin to getting hit by a falling bathtub (or "porcelain throne") than of being blown up. I think I'd rather be in the vicinity of manned intercept aircraft, but it's pretty much a Brit decision on their home turf. ** many homing missiles have been designed to explode if "miss distance" begins to increase, on the assumption that "if it ain't gonna be a hit" blowing it up might still take out the target. All the missiles of significant potency that I've seen details on (admittedly not the latest stuff) have included self-destruct or inerting provisions. You have to almost deliberately hit the wrong target to be a real hazard to the innocents. John |
|
30 Apr 12 - 07:00 AM (#3345141) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Leadfingers Penny - WHO started the idea that the US had insisted ?? THis is a Classic example of bloody silly scaremongering and S**T stirring which will only waste Max's bandwidth . |
|
30 Apr 12 - 07:51 AM (#3345152) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Charley Noble I think it's a brilliant idea! But why stop at placing them on some apartment complex water tower? Why not the Tower of London, or London Bridge, or in the crows nest of the Cutty Sark? In this world under siege you just can't have too many missile launchers. For some reasons, this debate reminds me of a contest we ran back in the late 1960s for "Miss Guided Missile." Charley Noble |
|
30 Apr 12 - 08:21 AM (#3345162) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Bobert Missiles??? Let's get real here??? Who are they going to shoot with them??? B~ |
|
30 Apr 12 - 08:32 AM (#3345167) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Doug Chadwick Let's get real here??? Who are they going to shoot with them??? Incoming hijacked 747's flown by terrorist suicide pilots, presumably. DC |
|
30 Apr 12 - 08:44 AM (#3345168) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. I didn't post links to the insistence sources, because I realised that they were possibly iffy, on reflection. Have traced the reference on a message board urban75, where no-one, and some posters seemed to be connected with the army, challenged it. They arose back in March, and referred back to a question in the Commons, and then stated that this had been picked up in the White House. I am still trying to find a reputable source for that. I should be more careful. But I still think that really good security at airports and places where small planes could take off would be much better than the offchance of killing people to avoid killing other people. And given the time available to make decisions, it doesn't look very sensible anyway. Presumably they would have to go up to someone entitled to decide to kill people to make the decision. Time lost there in those few minutes. And suppose a perfectly innocent plane is shot down? like that Iranian air liner over the Gulf. As to the copied sources - if they were the ones about the flats, the person who blew the whistle on that one was a journalist living there, and I suspect he submitted his piece to all the media, so it isn't exactly plagiarism. It appears he has also submitted to foreign media - something called DMNews. I didn't read all of them, I admit, just looking for a range with different politial standpoints. It is the final icing on the cake, in a way. Closing road lanes so the bigwigs can move around fast from their West End hotels, but workers can't get to work on time. Banning people from taking their own food in. Not allowing mothers of babies born since buying tickets to take the babies in, or get tickets for them. And all the rules about what can and can't be displayed by people miles away from the site. (I'm going to have my movement seriously curtailed by the closure of the A20 and feeder roads for three days during the Paralympic cycle events at Brands Hatch, as are many others, some worse, since they live on the A20. Sevenoaks, far off from the closures, is chortling about the honour it gives to the borough.) All this and being a target for friendly fire, too. Whoever is responsible. Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 09:20 AM (#3345179) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,number 6 Missles in the neighbourhood .... great idea ..... it could keep the riff raff from wandering through ... the ultimate in a gated community! biLL |
|
30 Apr 12 - 09:24 AM (#3345181) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. Found a source - still doesn't definitely associate US concerns directly with the missiles, more with the 1000 odd FBI agents expected. I'm putting in the links without the subtitles, so the dates are clear. http://theolympictorch.com/latest/122-ground-to-air-missiles-may-protect-london-2012-games Which led me to... http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/13/us-worried-london-olympics-security-2012?INTCMP=SRCH and... http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/14/olympics-2012-security-army?INTCMP=SRCH and, from the Embassy, ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/15/olympic-security-us-police?INTCMP=SRCH All of which, together with a most intemperate rant, were hidden in the sports section, which I routinely dump unread. Currently another piece, on snipers in helicopters, is lurking there, on-line. No corrections have been posted, and as the Guardian is pretty hot on this, that is interesting. The Daily Mail has been hiding stuff the same way, though with a different slant. Nov 2011 Here's a Telegraph piece from one of Whelan's neighbours, so it's different. Also, however, hiding from gurlies in the sport section. Today Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 10:07 AM (#3345197) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Backwoodsman London survived everything Germany could throw at it by way of high explosive during WW2 (as did many other UK cities - Southampton, Coventry, Sheffield, Hull to name but a few). No pissy belly-achers then, they all just gritted their teeth, said "Fuck the Huns" and got on with life (a life which was far worse, in many ways, than merely being inconvenienced by traffic hold-ups and the A20 being closed for a day or three). It will survive this storm in a moaner's teacup too. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 10:16 AM (#3345201) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Bobert For the record, a World War II P-51 could take down a high jacked 747 with little trouble so I'd bet an F-15 could with even less effort... B~ |
|
30 Apr 12 - 11:29 AM (#3345247) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,number 6 "We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrendah" biLL |
|
30 Apr 12 - 12:22 PM (#3345278) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. Someone calling themself number 6 goes along with this? Co-opting people's homes willy-nilly? And obviously three days of closed roads isn't anything compared with the war. But it is part of an attitude of contempt, which is affecting London much more. Hoi polloi don't matter. Correction to range - 5 km. Is that enough to get any threat down in time? And the missiles have multiple heads, so multiple risk of harm. Is the City airport going to be open during the Games? How are they going to be sure that a plane heading there is on course, or spot that it isn't in time? Shouldn't there be no fly arrangements? Are they going to be putting sky marshals on all flights likely to pass near the site? That would be more sensible, surely. Would they use these missiles on a microlite? A gyrocopter? And what about a ground based missile launcher operated by a terrorist group? Wouldn't people assume it was ours until it was too late? (A friend and I once saw what looked remarkably like a rocket going up from the area of Windsor Great Park under the flight path out of Heathrow - never mentioned in any news.) I'm not against security - and I'm certainly not against keeping the really effective stuff heavily secret. But I don't like the feeling that we are allowed to be a democracy until we aren't. (I used to get worried by the way The Professionals insinuated themselves into people's homes in order to snipe at people, without any paperwork.) And I recall Marriott Edgar's piece about Magna Carta - And that's why in England we can do as we like, as long as we do as we're told. Penny |
|
30 Apr 12 - 02:47 PM (#3345365) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Wesley S Maybe it should be put to a vote of the local residents? And if they turn it down { they will } then you can keep moving the games around from place to place until you find a neighborhood that willing? Good luck on that one.... |
|
30 Apr 12 - 03:53 PM (#3345388) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Stu "Maybe it should be put to a vote of the local residents? " That's called democracy so there's sod all chance of that happening in this country. I'm surprised Cameron and his genital wart of a mate Gideon haven't privatised the armed forces yet. Then we could expect taxpayers money to be poured into the account of feckless tosspots delivering missile systems that couldn't shoot down a poor argument at point black range. Mind you, him and his chum are merrily practising on the NHS, so time will tell. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM (#3345401) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: gnu I could use some missiles. We got some yappy little dogs in my neighbour that just won't shut the fuck up and their owners are obviously deaf. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 04:47 PM (#3345408) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Ed T IMO, if you are going to get good ones, don't buy them from North Korea. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 08:43 PM (#3345477) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""If exploded in the air, even over a built up area, fewer deaths might result. The pragmatism of terror."" Having seen surface to air missiles used in various test scenarios, as well as by Iraqi terrorists, I have never seen a large target plane disintegrate to the point where it would reduce damage on the ground. In fact the DHL Jumbo struck over Iraq lost a large piece of one wing and still managed a landing. What kind of missile would be necessary to destroy a passenger plane completely?.........I don't think such a weapon exists in a surface to air role. Over London, I can't see any such being deployed, even assuming that there were sufficient time to assess the situation and respond, which is itself unlikely in the extreme. Don T. |
|
30 Apr 12 - 08:48 PM (#3345482) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Bobert This is the way crazy people think... Ya'll in the UK need to get the crazy people out of decision making positions in your government... BTW, we have 'um here in the US, too... They are called Tea Party and they'd be all for missiles, if not nukes, in the neighborhoods... B~ |
|
01 May 12 - 04:02 AM (#3345533) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Stu Can't get rid of 'em Bobert, as the alternative is equally bad. In fact I'm thinking of coming to live over there . . . at least there's some space and empty roads. |
|
01 May 12 - 05:39 AM (#3345570) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. Latest leak is that there will be an exclusion zone, except for planes heading for recognised airports. Two versions, inner complete and outer not so much so. A company from Rochester, dealing with light aircraft and microlites, is thinking it will be going to lose 5 weeks income. Penny |
|
01 May 12 - 05:55 AM (#3345575) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Stu Ah, but the thing is McDonald's will make a bundle selling their brand of shite to the attendees, so who cares about small businesses? No fucker organising the olympics that's for sure. |
|
01 May 12 - 06:37 AM (#3345596) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,Eliza Sugarfoot Jack, come and live in Norfolk UK. Plenty of space and empty roads here! |
|
01 May 12 - 07:08 AM (#3345605) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: John MacKenzie If you don't want to be protected from possible attack, go paddle your canoe along the coast of Somalia. EVERY commercial plane that enters UK airspace is logged. Small planes are a possible danger, that's why they want the guys with the flying school to cease operations. So they don't get shot down by mistake. Agreed they should be compensated, but apart from that, it's all part of the bag and baggage of the Olympic Games. No, I didn't ask for it either, but it'll soon be over thank god. It's when we find out how much further it has plunged the UK economy into debt, that we need to really, start worrying! |
|
01 May 12 - 07:30 AM (#3345613) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Bonzo3legs You mean how much further than the hideous Gordon Brown put the country into debt. |
|
01 May 12 - 09:04 AM (#3345641) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Les from Hull Aha, thread creep! |
|
01 May 12 - 09:49 AM (#3345662) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Arkie And it is very thoughtful of the 'powers that be' to advertise where the missiles will be located. |
|
01 May 12 - 10:22 AM (#3345671) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: John MacKenzie Well they're not going to be targets are they. There's a difference between defensive, and offensive, weapons. |
|
01 May 12 - 12:41 PM (#3345725) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,Eliza Funny cartoon in the Daily Mail today. Old granny on her council-flat balcony, leaning towards a huge rocket launcher and speaking to uniformed Army personnel:- "We're very proud to be able to help Security in this way. Now what does THIS button do?" (Rocket zooming off towards the stadium) |
|
01 May 12 - 01:09 PM (#3345741) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Bert If the Olympics ever comes near our town again I'd just love to have a missile launcher in my back yard. |
|
01 May 12 - 05:06 PM (#3345828) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. Cartoon, scroll down. No reporting of compensation being offered to the Medway Flying School, though a ministry spokesperson said that closing them down was perfectly normal. All of a piece with the destruction of businesses in the Olympic park area. Anyone remember about Athens, and what has happened to Greece since? And I shouldn't whinge about being protected? I'm in range of the missiles on Blackheath and Shooters Hill, and under a place where the planes turn on their way to or from Heathrow. (Only just worked this out, I've been thinking of the people in East London.) But to practicalities. Any use of the missiles requires prime ministerial agreement. They lie a few minutes from the stadium. How is this going to be useful? There isn't going to be any time. The sites are all in a line, N and S of the stadium. Assuming that there's no need to protect the site from the west, I'd have gone for an arc, further out. And very intense intelligence observation of likely internal threats, the buzz online, any suggestion of Breivik types, and getting people to be part of it, looking out for unusual behaviour. And getting microlite schools on side - the Medway guy has said he would have been able to watch out for trouble from fliers. You don't have to defend people by putting them at risk, and showing them they have no rights, anyway. Penny |
|
02 May 12 - 11:57 AM (#3346126) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: JHW Could they just be a Deterrent? |
|
02 May 12 - 03:14 PM (#3346193) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,Eliza As they appear to be sited on unfortified residential tower blocks, potential terrorists could knock them out first before attacking the stadium, thereby ensuring that the maximum number of people are killed. Has this been thought through I wonder? |
|
02 May 12 - 05:06 PM (#3346233) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Bee-dubya-ell The reason they call it the Olympic Movement wouldn't be because it's devolved into a load of crap, would it? |
|
03 May 12 - 01:04 AM (#3346344) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Ebbie I've said for years that the Olympics should be held in Greece EVERY year. Each participating nation would fork over money for upkeep and upgrades... I would mention I didn't hear of either Beijing or Athens being attacked by missiles... As to having one's own country holding the Olympics with its inconvenience and expense, someone must have thought it was a good idea- the bidding is always frenetic and downright fierce. |
|
03 May 12 - 06:02 PM (#3346608) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. They did have missile defences, though. Presumably they work like elephant powder. Penny |
|
04 May 12 - 02:59 AM (#3346711) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Keith A of Hertford There is no real credible threat from elephants Penny. If the safety of all those thousands of people and children was your responsibility, how confident would you be that there was not any threat of a terrorist attack from above? |
|
04 May 12 - 07:43 AM (#3346755) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,olddude Missile defense systems are very well protected, also no one can fire them without the authorization codes. My concern would be someone taking off from a field with a small plane with lots of explosives. The fighter jets cannot move quick enough. The events have hundreds of thousands of people and the world stage making it a prime target for the bad guys. It is an unfortunate time that we live in don't you think |
|
04 May 12 - 08:26 AM (#3346769) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Keith A of Hertford Some pics of military preparations for Olympics. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17951136 |
|
04 May 12 - 10:38 AM (#3346822) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Greg F. "I've said for years that the Olympics should be held in Greece EVERY year." Never happen. Remember that the Olympics has little or nothing to do with athletics and everything to do with making lots and lots and lots of money. |
|
04 May 12 - 01:26 PM (#3346870) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,999 The scary scenario is hand-held stingers and commercial jets. These fuckers do not all all care about negative publicity--witness Munich. The only thing that will deal with them is 1) prevention 2) snipers But all it takes is one miss. |
|
04 May 12 - 03:58 PM (#3346926) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. It's interesting that in other places, people are not of the same mind as many here, and that includes people who obviously know quite a lot about the kit concerned. Penny |
|
04 May 12 - 04:32 PM (#3346937) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Penny S. Oh, and I thought you might be amused by the prize for completing the wordsearch in the village advertising sheet this month. A helicopter ride over London, to be taken before October. fo a modest payment, this can be upgraded to the "Thrill" flight. Penny |
|
05 May 12 - 06:08 AM (#3347083) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: David C. Carter My great musician/friend over in London,says he doesn't mind having a missile on his roof,as long as the "pointed end" is facing upward. He doesn't quite relish the thought of one coming through the kitchen! I can see where he's coming from! |
|
05 May 12 - 07:09 AM (#3347092) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Musket The Olympics should be held every time where they started, rather than in Greece. See how many tall buildings you can put snipers and missile batteries on in Much Wenlock... |
|
05 May 12 - 10:02 AM (#3347143) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Ebbie And where did the Olympics start if not in Greece? |
|
05 May 12 - 10:43 AM (#3347150) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Stu "The events have hundreds of thousands of people and the world stage making it a prime target for the bad guys." They're already there. McDonald's has the food concession (it being healthy stuff and in line with modern olympian values i.e. make bundles of moolah) and this means none of the small businesses that could have made a few quid selling decent grub are excluded. Could we aim turd missiles at government ministers? |
|
05 May 12 - 10:58 AM (#3347155) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Bonzo3legs Could we aim turd missiles at government ministers? mcdonalds would be more appropriate. |
|
05 May 12 - 11:07 AM (#3347156) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: Stu As McDonald's appears to have the nutritional value of something shat out of someone's arse then I've no objection. Then we could put flattened turds in the McDonald's and see how long it takes someone to notice the difference. |
|
05 May 12 - 01:32 PM (#3347197) Subject: RE: BS: Missiles in residential areas: opinions? From: GUEST,Eliza I can just hear the inane person serving at the counter, "Two Turdburgers with cheese. French fries with that?" |