US Military kicks Londoners in teeth

[Loki]

Attacked by who? Who would attack a US soldier, presumably in civvies, on a street in London, when - as someone points out on another thread - they could easily blow up a pub full of squaddies? This makes no sense to me.

Nor me. I doubt the terrorist cell is even in the country now, but prolly the last thing they'd do is cart bombs and guns around in London now, given the incredibly heightened state of alert.

 

[Ae589]

This is my first bomb-related post since the 7th. Stuff yer Blitz.

rant stop.

clap. clap. clap.

Give me jigoistic defiance any day over 13 year old sulking.

IMO, the reaction of many people in one nation like that defines a nation, rather than being an excuse to display it. Fair play for giving an alternative view though.



I was going to say it may be for our safety rather than the US's that they don't come into london. The make great targets.

 

[kyser_soze]

Attacked by who? Who would attack a US soldier, presumably in civvies, on a street in London, when - as someone points out on another thread - they could easily blow up a pub full of squaddies? This makes no sense to me.

Let me take this REALLY SLOWLY for those who can't think in terms of risk...

1. Services personel would represent a potential target, and certianly a 'higher value' target to any terrorist cells that may or may not still be operating in London.

2. These personel may well be mixing in areas with civilians. This ramps up the risk factor to the civilian population

3. Therefore on balance, it is best that forces personel, whether on civvies or uniform, don't walk into an area that is still potentially a target risk.

Try thinking in the most paranoid terms you can because that is how security and military planners have to think, and I suspect that this is among the reasons that forces personel have been told not to come into London. REGARDLESS of whether they are in civvies or not. I mean can you imagine the headlines if whomever blew a pub with squaddies in it and took a load of civilians out as well? The press would be screaming 'Why were they allowed in when they were an obvious target?' etc.

Try seeking out a security expert and talking to them about how they go about assesing risk - it's fucking scary, because they try to think about every possible scenario and outcome and this sounds like this example is precisely the case.

A off-duty soldier somewhere within the M25 is not a terrorist target, and their presence does not pose any danger to civilians unless it is through their own actions

Exactly what training, experience or specialist knowledge do you have that makes you think this statement is correct? 'Commonsense'? 'It's obvious isn't it'...well wasn't it obvious that terrorists would bomb London on the day the G8 summit started?

 

[mauvais]

Let me take this REALLY SLOWLY for those who can't think in terms of risk...

1. Services personel would represent a potential target, and certianly a 'higher value' target to any terrorist cells that may or may not still be operating in London.

2. These personel may well be mixing in areas with civilians. This ramps up the risk factor to the civilian population

3. Therefore on balance, it is best that forces personel, whether on civvies or uniform, don't walk into an area that is still potentially a target risk.

This doesn't hold any water. They are not going to be travelling in groups, and they are not going to be readily identifiable. Why would a bomber or other attacker, who has gone to great lengths to get here and put themselves in a position where they can attack anyone, expend their efforts on a single off-duty soldier?

Even if you extrapolate and assume there are lots of air force personnel in a London pub together, all wearing uniforms and loudly proclaiming who they are, why is this a better target than your ordinary bus? What does more disruption and damage to the psyche of the nation? In any case, you could have avoided this by simply saying "keep a low profile". There is no tangible threat here whatsoever.

Excuse my scorn but this, and especially frogwoman's post, seem to me precisely the sort of attitude - extrapolating scenarios based on neither fact nor history - that leads to both paranoia and the government et al getting away with all sorts to further their own agenda. Let's have ID cards, because it "might" stop them. Let's ban dogs in case someone attaches a bomb to them and blows up a butchers!

 

[TeeJay]

He has a right to say what he believes, I just wish it was on a new thread. This isn't a thread about nationalism, it's about betrayal by our supposed allies. It's such a stupid asessment of risk and probablities too. The Americans come out really badly over this on so many levels.

What betrayal?

Off-duty servicemen of all nationalities are often targets in all sorts of places and get advice about where to go and not to go. Why is this any different? I admit that the advice sounds pretty rubbish as London is so big than off-duty American military personnel won't stand out at all, but why exactly is it a "betrayal"?

 

[Jangla]

1. Services personel would represent a potential target, and certianly a 'higher value' target to any terrorist cells that may or may not still be operating in London.

I agree with some of what you said but the point above, I'm afraid I can't. Defenseless citizens are undoubtedly a higher value target in a campaign that seeks to shock and spread terror (imo, of course). As a small, dificult to detect cell, requiring only small amounts of money and resources, which would you target, citizens with no immediate way of fighting back, or the combined armies of the US and the UK?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

kyser: By that logic they should stay out of London at all times. They would be no more or less targets now than previously. (Actually, probably less risk now, with security generally higher.)

 

[Loki]

And London is rammed full of UK military. Should they all run away too?

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't know if you've bothered reading my posts but I've not offered an opinion on whether it's the correct order or not - I'm simply trying to explain a possible 'Why' it's been ordered because quite frankly there is some really one-channel thinking on this thread - 'US army/RAF are all pussies and cowards for not coming to London'.

Personally I think it's a stupid order as well esp. from a PR perspective, and certanly one that won't give reassurance to anyone who is genuinely worried for their safety in London. As for your comment on whether it's a tangible threat or not...who knows, and that's the point. Security people are PAID to be paranoid.

 

[mauvais]

Alternatively, you issue a statement saying you have a credible threat or concern for the safety of soldiers, and will therefore be limiting their off-duty activities, i.e. banning them from pubs (they do have pubs full of squaddies outside the M25, I'm told). Keeping them out of London for no apparent reason is off on a bizarre tangent and serves no purpose other than to piss people right off.

 

[TeeJay]

Fact that the RAF, etc. may have made the same decision doesn't affect the point ...

So we have been "betrayed" by the RAF and they should 'fuck off out of the country' as well?

What is the 'point'?

 

[TeeJay]

Whining about this yourself doesn't make it look like you have much of an point...

Hang out with Americans for a while and then hang out with other nationalities. Americans can be a bunch of babies sometimes, and lot more than others. There is a reason for this stereotype...

I'm an American citizen, not that anyone would know unless I told them. Some of the shite on this thread is turning my stomache.

 

[kyser_soze]

kyser: By that logic they should stay out of London at all times. They would be no more or less targets now than previously. (Actually, probably less risk now, with security generally higher.)

There are probably a few secutiry personel out there who, if given free rein, wouldn't allow forces personel out on either leave in civvies or active service uniform in a city like London full stop becuase of the potential risk to them and the civilian population.

You just ave to ramp up the paranoia levels.

And again Mauvais, what you regard as 'credble' and what someone with access to a lot more intelligence information regards as 'credible' may well be two very different things...

 

[treelover]

ah, that explains all your pro war comments in p/p

'I'm an American citizen, not that anyone would know unless I told them'.

 

[mauvais]

And again Mauvais, what you regard as 'credble' and what someone with access to a lot more intelligence information regards as 'credible' may well be two very different things...

I'm afraid that given the 'credible' evidence we've been handed in the past four years, and the lack of it before, I'll continue to pay scant regard to these esteemed experts. There's the small issue of a little war we had based on credible evidence. Credible evidence which is also highly credible, of the credible kind, told us that kites are dangerous weapons

Of course then again, I'm not a squaddie, for which I am particularly grateful

 

[fanta]

Took them a year to fly planes after 9/11 too.

We are a different kind of people I guess.

Americans on the whole are molly-coddled chickenshit crying to their lawyers over a hot coffee, and we are generally used to bombs and just get on with it.

Fuck them, they aren't welcome anyway, bunch of rapists and child-killers...

Wise and insightful as ever pk.

If only more Americans were not like you describe and instead were, say, for example, like you!

That would no doubt be a VAST improvement, huh?

 

[tobyjug]

The US Military has ordered its Servicemen and women not to enter London or anywhere within the M25 because of the bombings. Thanks for the support When I heard this on the radio this morning, half-asleep, I sat bold upright in bed awoken sharply with sheer fury.

I really despair of these boards sometimes. It is standard procedure for any armed forces of whatever nation when they are based in another country when there are such problems. It is so the situation is not inflamed by their presence.

 

[TeeJay]

...Keeping them out of London for no apparent reason is off on a bizarre tangent and serves no purpose other than to piss people right off.

Why does anyone gove a shit where military personnel go when off-duty? Isn't their security their own business? I don't think anyone here is an expert in this. Why should anyone be pissed off about travel adviseries? Have you seen the stuff that the Foreign Office puts out about various locations around the world? The prime purpose is probably to cover their arses from being sued if someone did get killed or injured.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah, I have seen it, all those travel advisory warnings and stuff.

 

[mauvais]

Why does anyone gove a shit where military personnel go when off-duty? Isn't their security their own business? I don't think anyone here is an expert in this. Why should anyone be pissed off about travel adviseries? Have you seen the stuff that the Foreign Office puts out about various locations around the world? The prime purpose is probably to cover their arses from being sued if someone did get killed or injured.

The reason it pisses people off is because it's specific, and at the same time, without basis. Do you think your average London commuter feels happy - while many are blaming the war for inciting this in the first place - that the USAF announce London isn't safe?

I repeat again: it is not standard travel advice. Saying that soldiers are a possible target and should maintain low profiles wherever they are, is one thing, and to my mind absolutely fair. Telling them - and what is the difference between an off-duty soldier and a civilian? - to avoid London is quite another

 

[TeeJay]

I repeat again: it is not standard travel advice.

You have experience of being in the military and getting advice about travelling do you?

You have your assessment. The US military has made theirs. They are employers and have a duty of care to their personnel. They have their own way of working out their advice which we are not party to.

You obviously disagree with their assessment but I still don't see why what they advise their employees should piss anyone else off. Its hardly as if the London economy will collapse because of this: people should care far more if the US government was advising US national to cancel their holidays. Have they done this?

 

[MarkMark]

Update: The BBC news has just said that the US military are 'reviewing the order to stay away from London'

see! they're obviously not really scared of London then - Just a little bit edgy.

Maybe it's an allergic reaction to warm beer or something

 

[William of Walworth]

Fact that the RAF, etc. may have made the same decision doesn't affect the point ...

So we have been "betrayed" by the RAF and they should 'fuck off out of the country' as well?

What is the 'point'?

What's YOUR point? That any criticism (see below) of what the Americans do in this country amounts to no more than sweeping 'Yank bashing'?

My 'agreement' with another poster -- kea I think -- about 'fuck off out of the country' (on page 2 I think) was far from completely serious (see smilies). In any case even I did make that point seriously -- which I wasn't doing -- I''d do so more reasonedly, and in another thread. I would only mean service personnel, not Americans generally -- I'm not that bigotted.

I actually agree with some of kyser's posts on this -- I can understand WHY the US military (and presumably the RAF, etc.) made this decision, but I also think it's
a. Fairly unnecessary, given that military personnel of all stripes are going to be in civvies, not travelling en masse, not all that easily identifiable.
b. Timing a bit illogical -- what risk they're at applies at all times, and is probably less now (given heightened post 7 July security) than previously.
c. Ignoring the point that bombers acting like those who acted on 7 July, go for indiscriminate civilian casualties rather than in a more precisely targetted way.

Not to say that the above can't change, I'm just trying to apply logic though.

 

[mauvais]

You have experience of being in the military and getting advice about travelling do you?

You have your assessment. The US military has made theirs. They are employers and have a duty of care to their personnel. They have their own way of working out their advice which we are not party to.

You obviously disagree with their assessment but I still don't see why what they advise their employees should piss anyone else off. Its hardly as if the London economy will collapse because of this: people should care far more if the US government was advising US national to cancel their holidays. Have they done this?

It doesn't matter; yes, that would be worse, but this is the same only lower down the scale. For your average Londoner trying to get on with their lives as so many are, it doesn't help that a foreign military power, as guests in their country, are publicly saying that their city is not safe. What if the British government said the same thing, and that politicians were to be transferred to outside the UK because they felt they might be targets?

Commuters don't have an option about whether or not they go there. To my mind you could not issue a more abrasive statement, in spite of all the politics of this, than to tell the military not to go to London.

 

[William of Walworth]

I'm an American citizen, not that anyone would know unless I told them. Some of the shite on this thread is turning my stomache.

Get a fucking grip. Yes one or two of the posts have been too sweeping (and at the time, too flippant as well and not all that serious)

But if you're not able to tell the difference between proper criticism of Bush, neocons, American foreign policy, Republicans, etc. and generalised 'Yank bashing' then I suggest you think again.

I don't deny there's some over sweping Yank bashing occasionally. Even in this thread. But I suggest that you blame George Bush for that, instead of lumping together all criticisms of the US, reasoned or not.

 

[William of Walworth]

It doesn't matter; yes, that would be worse, but this is the same only lower down the scale. For your average Londoner trying to get on with their lives as so many are, it doesn't help that a foreign military power, as guests in their country, are publicly saying that their city is not safe. What if the British government said the same thing, and that politicians were to be transferred to outside the UK because they felt they might be targets?

Commuters don't have an option about whether or not they go there. To my mind you could not issue a more abrasive statement, in spite of all the politics of this, than to tell the military not to go to London.

Don't bother making those (sensible, logical, reasonable) points mauvais, you're just a Yank basher it would seem, according to TeeJay's worldview ...

 

[mauvais]

Don't bother making those (sensible, logical, reasonable) points mauvais, you're just a Yank basher it would seem, according to TeeJay's worldview ...

I don't think that's a fair criticism of TeeJay tbh; there has been some sentiment expressed that could be seen as anti-your average American citizen, but not much. I didn't think his comments were aimed particularly at me.

 

[butterfly child]

This doesn't hold any water. They are not going to be travelling in groups, and they are not going to be readily identifiable. Why would a bomber or other attacker, who has gone to great lengths to get here and put themselves in a position where they can attack anyone, expend their efforts on a single off-duty soldier?

Even if you extrapolate and assume there are lots of air force personnel in a London pub together, all wearing uniforms and loudly proclaiming who they are, why is this a better target than your ordinary bus? What does more disruption and damage to the psyche of the nation? In any case, you could have avoided this by simply saying "keep a low profile". There is no tangible threat here whatsoever.

Excuse my scorn but this, and especially frogwoman's post, seem to me precisely the sort of attitude - extrapolating scenarios based on neither fact nor history - that leads to both paranoia and the government et al getting away with all sorts to further their own agenda. Let's have ID cards, because it "might" stop them. Let's ban dogs in case someone attaches a bomb to them and blows up a butchers!

I SO agree with this.

 

[William of Walworth]

I don't think that's a fair criticism of TeeJay tbh; there has been some sentiment expressed that could be seen as anti-your average American citizen, but not much. I didn't think his comments were aimed particularly at me.

Fair enough -- sorry TeeJay. I just get riled when ALL criticism of particular aspects of America/American foreign policy on this forum gets written off as bigotry and Yank bashing -- sure there is some, but not all of it is as 'sickening' as you seem to be assuming ... some of it is more nuanced and more justified.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

yeah john reid said it was only because the us army chiefs didn't want anyone getting in the way of the post-attack clean up operation, which was clearly stretched to all four corners of the M25 that day

(i know circles don't have corners though)

Maybe its becuase they are genuinely so thick that the 'please dont come to London unless necessary for a few days' isnt quite clear enough for them