Poll: 'Stop The Olympic Missiles' and you...

[GoaThief]

Hating these Olympics, way to bankrupt the country.

Just ask Greece how they got on!

 

[Albino Boo]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

You are right, there as NEVER been a terrorist attack connected to the Olympics. Oh wait...there has...twice in fact.

Yes there have, but the paranoia surrounding it is over the top. And twice is not an awful lot in the entire history of the olympics. I'm not saying we should stop all security measures but it doesn't need to be excessive.

So your ok with a 1/12 chance of being killed in terrorist attack then? Seeing there have only been 24 modern summer Olympics and 2 of them have seen attacks the chance is very high in reality.

 

[bobmus]

I don't really have much of a problem with the missiles but they shouldn't be on top of people's flats. You can see why that would make people uneasy, I mean I certainly wouldn't like it.

I think it's a great idea, and most of the people living in the flats are probably there for free anyway. Quit whining, I say - it's hardly the worst thing about living in said areas!

That's... not very nice

Perhaps not, but it's fairly practical. In such a built-up area, we need to put them on top of something tall, so why not use the flat blocks in said area?

Because it's a residential area with people who object to it? I was under the impression we lived in a democratic country

There's a difference between a democracy and a powerless government. I do agree that they should have been much more upfront about the plans and asked if any flats would volunteer, but in reality someone's ultimately got to bite the bullet, so to speak.

And again I must ask if you'd feel the same way if it was your flat? Would you just 'bite the bullet', or would you be pissed that the government decided to put hi-tech weaponry on top of your home without asking you?

My decision ultimately is based on the question of whether I'm living there for free. If not, yeah, I get why they're pissed, and I would be too. If these are council flats, I'd hope I was gracious enough to go 'Yeah, let's use the flats for something other than just paying to house other people.'
What would you think, if you lived in a council flat they were doing this in?

(Note: I base the thought that these are probably council flats on my experience of the areas involved)

So what you're basically saying is 'they're on benefits so we can do what we want and don't have to listen to them'?

It's not doing anything to them, just to their flat, which is provided by the same government who wants to put missiles on it.

What would your feelings be if you lived in such a council flat though?

 

[Hazy992]

snip

I find that hard to believe quite frankly. I seriously doubt you'd be cool with the government going 'oh BTW we're putting missiles on your roof kthxbai' without consulting you or giving you a say in the matter. You'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be.

Not to mention that these missiles make these flats a potential target for anybody planning something. If I lived in these flats I'd be pretty damn scared right now because I'd be constantly thinking something bad could happen or go wrong.

 

[Hazy992]

I don't really have much of a problem with the missiles but they shouldn't be on top of people's flats. You can see why that would make people uneasy, I mean I certainly wouldn't like it.

I think it's a great idea, and most of the people living in the flats are probably there for free anyway. Quit whining, I say - it's hardly the worst thing about living in said areas!

That's... not very nice

Perhaps not, but it's fairly practical. In such a built-up area, we need to put them on top of something tall, so why not use the flat blocks in said area?

Because it's a residential area with people who object to it? I was under the impression we lived in a democratic country

There's a difference between a democracy and a powerless government. I do agree that they should have been much more upfront about the plans and asked if any flats would volunteer, but in reality someone's ultimately got to bite the bullet, so to speak.

And again I must ask if you'd feel the same way if it was your flat? Would you just 'bite the bullet', or would you be pissed that the government decided to put hi-tech weaponry on top of your home without asking you?

My decision ultimately is based on the question of whether I'm living there for free. If not, yeah, I get why they're pissed, and I would be too. If these are council flats, I'd hope I was gracious enough to go 'Yeah, let's use the flats for something other than just paying to house other people.'
What would you think, if you lived in a council flat they were doing this in?

(Note: I base the thought that these are probably council flats on my experience of the areas involved)

So what you're basically saying is 'they're on benefits so we can do what we want and don't have to listen to them'?

It's not doing anything to them, just to their flat, which is provided by the same government who wants to put missiles on it.

What would your feelings be if you lived in such a council flat though?

Oh that makes it OK then. It's just their flat after all, it's not like people live there or anything ¬_¬

If this was my flat, I'd be pissed off and I'd quite frankly terrified something bad could happen. As I've said already they're going to be a potential target for any terrorist planning something. It'd be kinda hard to sleep with that going through your mind, especially if you have children.

 

[bobmus]

I don't really have much of a problem with the missiles but they shouldn't be on top of people's flats. You can see why that would make people uneasy, I mean I certainly wouldn't like it.

I think it's a great idea, and most of the people living in the flats are probably there for free anyway. Quit whining, I say - it's hardly the worst thing about living in said areas!

That's... not very nice

Perhaps not, but it's fairly practical. In such a built-up area, we need to put them on top of something tall, so why not use the flat blocks in said area?

Because it's a residential area with people who object to it? I was under the impression we lived in a democratic country

There's a difference between a democracy and a powerless government. I do agree that they should have been much more upfront about the plans and asked if any flats would volunteer, but in reality someone's ultimately got to bite the bullet, so to speak.

And again I must ask if you'd feel the same way if it was your flat? Would you just 'bite the bullet', or would you be pissed that the government decided to put hi-tech weaponry on top of your home without asking you?

My decision ultimately is based on the question of whether I'm living there for free. If not, yeah, I get why they're pissed, and I would be too. If these are council flats, I'd hope I was gracious enough to go 'Yeah, let's use the flats for something other than just paying to house other people.'
What would you think, if you lived in a council flat they were doing this in?

(Note: I base the thought that these are probably council flats on my experience of the areas involved)

So what you're basically saying is 'they're on benefits so we can do what we want and don't have to listen to them'?

It's not doing anything to them, just to their flat, which is provided by the same government who wants to put missiles on it.

What would your feelings be if you lived in such a council flat though?

Oh that makes it OK then. It's just their flat after all, it's not like people live there or anything ¬_¬

If this was my flat, I'd be pissed off and I'd quite frankly terrified something bad could happen. As I've said already they're going to be a potential target for any terrorist planning something. It'd be kinda hard to sleep with that going through your mind, especially if you have children.

Yeah, I imagine they aren't exactly going to be over the moon about it, though I disagree that they'll be targets (terrorist organisations want to hit civilians, not fight the military).
However, how much right does a person living in a house that someone else owns have in saying what that person does with their house? I think the government (and the military) are justified - their business isn't to ensure everyone is happy.

 

[MammothBlade]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

You are right, there as NEVER been a terrorist attack connected to the Olympics. Oh wait...there has...twice in fact.

Yes there have, but the paranoia surrounding it is over the top. And twice is not an awful lot in the entire history of the olympics. I'm not saying we should stop all security measures but it doesn't need to be excessive.

So your ok with a 1/12 chance of being killed in terrorist attack then? Seeing there have only been 24 modern summer Olympics and 2 of them have seen attacks the chance is very high in reality.

The chance of that happening is 0 because I'm not going to bother with the Olympics sham. But it's not going to happen. With armed police, bomb squads, and interceptor jets the Olympics should be more than secure enough. The olympics will already have enough of an impact upon the lives of Londoners who have to commute thanks to the absurd "olympic only" lanes on London roads. Enough is enough.

 

[Albino Boo]

snip

I find that hard to believe quite frankly. I seriously doubt you'd be cool with the government going 'oh BTW we're putting missiles on your roof kthxbai' without consulting you or giving you a say in the matter. You'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be.

Not to mention that these missiles make these flats a potential target for anybody planning something. If I lived in these flats I'd be pretty damn scared right now because I'd be constantly thinking something bad could happen or go wrong.

I suppose its my age, I grew up in area of the country with at least 6 targets for Russian nuclear missiles within 15 miles. After living through the very real risk of nuclear war in the early 80's a few missiles on the roof doesn't mean a whole lot. Also when you have seen 2, fortunately non fatal, IRA bomb attacks it makes rather glad of having a few squadies about. Plus the fact I have lived in the east end and getting burgled is way too common and having, for a few weeks, armed guards on the building just means there is one less thing to worry about.

 

[jaffrosheep]

is it just me that is thinking that putting missiles on flats is bound for stupid twats to end up somehow braking something

 

[Hazy992]

Yeah, I imagine they aren't exactly going to be over the moon about it, though I disagree that they'll be targets (terrorist organisations want to hit civilians, not fight the military).

Right, and these people are civilians. With missiles on their flats. Missiles meant to stop air-based attacks. It's not hard to see why they'd be a target.

However, how much right does a person living in a house that someone else owns have in saying what that person does with their house? I think the government (and the military) are justified

Again, you're basically saying that because it's not their house the government can just dick them over. Well no they can't. This shit might fly in China but not here.

I mean that food they bought isn't technically theirs it's the government's. It's cool for them to just take it then right?

their business isn't to ensure everyone is happy.

Kinda is

 

[Hazy992]

snip

I find that hard to believe quite frankly. I seriously doubt you'd be cool with the government going 'oh BTW we're putting missiles on your roof kthxbai' without consulting you or giving you a say in the matter. You'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be.

Not to mention that these missiles make these flats a potential target for anybody planning something. If I lived in these flats I'd be pretty damn scared right now because I'd be constantly thinking something bad could happen or go wrong.

I suppose its my age, I grew up in area of the country with at least 6 targets for Russian nuclear missiles within 15 miles. After living through the very real risk of nuclear war in the early 80's a few missiles on the roof doesn't mean a whole lot. Also when you have seen 2, fortunately non fatal, IRA bomb attacks it makes rather glad of having a few squadies about. Plus the fact I have lived in the east end and getting burgled is way too common and having, for a few weeks, armed guards on the building just means there is one less thing to worry about.

So the fact there may be a smaller chance of getting burgled means they should be forced to have missiles on their house?

And just because you say you'd be cool with it doesn't mean these people have to be. It's being forced on them and it's unfair

 

[Albino Boo]

No missiles at all. The paranoia surrounding terrorism at the olympics is unfounded and intended to create an atmosphere of fear. Whilst there should be some sort of defence it doesn't need to be in the form of militarising London.

You are right, there as NEVER been a terrorist attack connected to the Olympics. Oh wait...there has...twice in fact.

Yes there have, but the paranoia surrounding it is over the top. And twice is not an awful lot in the entire history of the olympics. I'm not saying we should stop all security measures but it doesn't need to be excessive.

So your ok with a 1/12 chance of being killed in terrorist attack then? Seeing there have only been 24 modern summer Olympics and 2 of them have seen attacks the chance is very high in reality.

The chance of that happening is 0 because I'm not going to bother with the Olympics sham. But it's not going to happen. With armed police, bomb squads, and interceptor jets the Olympics should be more than secure enough. The olympics will already have enough of an impact upon the lives of Londoners who have to commute thanks to the absurd "olympic only" lanes on London roads. Enough is enough.

Your argument appears to be that because the having an extra 60000 poeple moving to the Olympics inconveniences you and therefore they shouldn't be protected. Well pedestrians crossing the road inconvenience me when driving, so lets remove all those zebra and pelican crossings.

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

And just because you say you'd be cool with it doesn't mean these people have to be. It's being forced on them and it's unfair

I think having 450 tons of Boeing unexpectedly inserted into your face whilst watching some chaps run just because some NIMBY was whining is rather more unfair

 

[bobmus]

Yeah, I imagine they aren't exactly going to be over the moon about it, though I disagree that they'll be targets (terrorist organisations want to hit civilians, not fight the military).

Right, and these people are civilians. With missiles on their flats. Missiles meant to stop air-based attacks. It's not hard to see why they'd be a target.
A target for what exactly? An assault on a heavily-guarded surface to air missile?

However, how much right does a person living in a house that someone else owns have in saying what that person does with their house? I think the government (and the military) are justified

Again, you're basically saying that because it's not their house the government can just dick them over. Well no they can't. This shit might fly in China but not here.
Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.
They don't own the house, so it's not their decision to make, really. Life's unfair, and some people have to lose out to add security for thousands more.

I mean that food they bought isn't technically theirs it's the government's. It's cool for them to just take it then right?
Slightly different, as that would be going back on the promise of giving them support. That'd be equivalent to kicking them out of the house because it was in a strategic location, which they don't appear to have done.

their business isn't to ensure everyone is happy.

Kinda is

It's more to to make sure more people are happy than unhappy. It's difficult to tell on this issue, but I imagine guarding the Olympics with missiles makes more people happy than it makes unhappy.

Perhaps we could've had a poll on such an issue, with more information released about why they want to do it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

And they say fanboys in gaming are bad, you guys are cracking down on Olympics with the god damn army? Wow... it must really be getting competitive out there.

I'm not even sure now if you are for real.

 

[Albino Boo]

snip

I find that hard to believe quite frankly. I seriously doubt you'd be cool with the government going 'oh BTW we're putting missiles on your roof kthxbai' without consulting you or giving you a say in the matter. You'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be.

Not to mention that these missiles make these flats a potential target for anybody planning something. If I lived in these flats I'd be pretty damn scared right now because I'd be constantly thinking something bad could happen or go wrong.

I suppose its my age, I grew up in area of the country with at least 6 targets for Russian nuclear missiles within 15 miles. After living through the very real risk of nuclear war in the early 80's a few missiles on the roof doesn't mean a whole lot. Also when you have seen 2, fortunately non fatal, IRA bomb attacks it makes rather glad of having a few squadies about. Plus the fact I have lived in the east end and getting burgled is way too common and having, for a few weeks, armed guards on the building just means there is one less thing to worry about.

So the fact there may be a smaller chance of getting burgled means they should be forced to have missiles on their house?

And just because you say you'd be cool with it doesn't mean these people have to be. It's being forced on them and it's unfair

Let make this point as simple as I can for the hard of thinking


1. Because a few whinny stupid loud-mouths go to court who live in building mean everyone who lives there does.

2. Even the if was 100% of the poeple the who live there do I DON'T CARE BECAUSE REDUCING THE RISK THAT 60000 PEOPLE GET KILLED IS MORE IMPORTANT. The world does not revolve around wishes of one tower block in east London, there are plenty of things that I don't like or don't want near me but I live with them because it FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH I LIVE.


In other words if they don't like it stand for mayor of London on a no missiles on my roof top and bugger the risk anyone else and see what happens. Something along the lines of they get 200 votes versus the millions cast for Labour or Conservative.

 

[Black Arrow Officer]

That's pretty badass actually. Missiles are always cool.

 

[Hazy992]

A target for what exactly? An assault on a heavily-guarded surface to air missile?

Well if you were planning an attack then it would be in your best interest to get rid of those missiles first. It's really not difficult to see why they'd be a target.

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.
They don't own the house, so it's not their decision to make, really. Life's unfair, and some people have to lose out to add security for thousands more.

Well you know what that's a frankly terrible attitude to have. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to read in the Daily Mail or hear on Fox News.

You're basically saying that if the government helps them out they don't get a voice. That's not an attitude that should be a part of a democracy.

Slightly different, as that would be going back on the promise of giving them support. That'd be equivalent to kicking them out of the house because it was in a strategic location, which they don't appear to have done.

So you'd be OK with forcible evictions too now?

It's more to to make sure more people are happy than unhappy. It's difficult to tell on this issue, but I imagine guarding the Olympics with missiles makes more people happy than it makes unhappy.

I already said I don't really have a problem with the missiles

I don't really have much of a problem with the missiles but they shouldn't be on top of people's flats. You can see why that would make people uneasy, I mean I certainly wouldn't like it.

But they shouldn't be forced on people who have explicitly said they don't want them and have not actually been given a say in the matter. Put them somewhere else or at the very least ask if they'd be OK with that

I think having 450 tons of Boeing unexpectedly inserted into your face whilst watching some chaps run just because some NIMBY was whining is rather more unfair

This is more than simple NIMBYism, these aren't windfarms we're talking about here but while we're on the topic of windfarms you know what the government does they want them built? They have a public consultation, as in they ask first. It's part of being a democracy.

 

[Hazy992]

Let make this point as simple as I can for the hard of thinking

Probably not a good idea to start your arguments with insults but go on ¬_¬

1. Because a few whinny stupid loud-mouths go to court who live in building mean everyone who lives there does.

And because a few didn't that means they're all cool with it amirite? Why was there no consultation process

2. Even the if was 100% of the poeple the who live there do I DON'T CARE BECAUSE REDUCING THE RISK THAT 60000 PEOPLE GET KILLED IS MORE IMPORTANT. The world does not revolve around wishes of one tower block in east London, there are plenty of things that I don't like or don't want near me but I live with them because it FOR THE COLLECTIVE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH I LIVE.

How can I put this eloquently? THIS IS NOT THE GODDAMN DPRK! You do NOT force this on people in a democracy you consult with them first.

In other words if they don't like it stand for mayor of London on a no missiles on my roof top and bugger the risk anyone else and see what happens. Something along the lines of they get 200 votes versus the millions cast for Labour or Conservative.

That's a great attitude to have; 'we can dick you over and if you don't like it just become mayor!'

Get a little perspective

 

[bobmus]

A target for what exactly? An assault on a heavily-guarded surface to air missile?

Well if you were planning an attack then it would be in your best interest to get rid of those missiles first. It's really not difficult to see why they'd be a target.
Yeah, but that's implying a much larger operation than we're likely to expect - they're not going to take over multiple military missile bases just to crashland a plane.

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.
They don't own the house, so it's not their decision to make, really. Life's unfair, and some people have to lose out to add security for thousands more.

Well you know what that's a frankly terrible attitude to have. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to read in the Daily Mail or hear on Fox News.

You're basically saying that if the government helps them out they don't get a voice. That's not an attitude that should be a part of a democracy.
Let's not make things too personal. D:
I've had far too many ethics classes/exams to get emotionally invested in an ethical problem. For me, the utilitarian good of defending the thousands is enough cause for some people to lose out here.

Slightly different, as that would be going back on the promise of giving them support. That'd be equivalent to kicking them out of the house because it was in a strategic location, which they don't appear to have done.

So you'd be OK with forcible evictions too now?
No, that was a comparative example to your 'so we can take away their food now' example.

It's more to to make sure more people are happy than unhappy. It's difficult to tell on this issue, but I imagine guarding the Olympics with missiles makes more people happy than it makes unhappy.

I already said I don't really have a problem with the missiles.
But they shouldn't be forced on people who have explicitly said they don't want them and have not actually been given a say in the matter. Put them somewhere else or at the very least ask if they'd be OK with that

Assuming that there are no other more suitable locations, this is our best bet I'd say. Though, as I already said, we could've had more openness about it, and perhaps a poll on the matter.