# 2012 Olympics and Terrorism



## racing_kitty (Jul 8, 2012)

As I'm sure some of you have heard, the Brits have been rounding up people over the last few days leading up to the Olympic Games.  Most recently, the Telegraph reported on a potential suicide bomber casing Olympic Park.  My question is this: despite all of the arrests prior to the opening ceremonies, what do you think the odds are of someone making a go at the Games in the name of jihad?  Do you think that an attempt would be successful, nearly successful, or an abject failure?

Having never worked with MI5/MI6 (that I know of), I am of the opinion that they are roping up everyone within arm's reach that they feel could make the attempt to really earn their virgins.  If anyone does actually go for the glory during the Games, it will likely be someone who sneaks in from outside of Britain.  Bear in mind, I haven't spent hours digging into this, nor am I an intel analyst by trade.  I'm interested in hearing y'all's opinions on this.


----------



## IT101 (Jul 8, 2012)

I am neither an analyst nor do I possess any, um, valid knowledge on CT, but I think the folks who would dare try something know that there are easier targets. Where's the fame and glory involved with getting gunned down well short of your target, especially with the large amount of security that an event like this will draw? I can think of a number of softer targets, but without throwing out wild ideas, I can't really support that argument.


----------



## Chopstick (Jul 8, 2012)

IDK why but those crazy doctors that drove the Jeep into the airport in Scotland (IIRC) just came to mind.  If there is any incident I think its going to end up being that sort of deal.  Its going to be a UK citizen of Pakistani persuasion.  Oh...btw.  FUCK PAKISTAN. And dont buy their shirts.


----------



## QC (Jul 8, 2012)

From my amateur experience during the Olympics here, there'd be plenty going on in London. JI pretty much called off any attempt here as they couldn't get close. For the Brits it will be the same, however, they do have a bigger problem and it's homegrown. I had a bit of a giggle when I heard about the recent raids. The guys had a good go at it, blowing off doors and wotnot. There will be more too. Incidentally, those janood who were picked up as yet haven't been charged to my knowledge.


----------



## pardus (Jul 8, 2012)

QC said:


> Incidentally, those janood who were picked up as yet haven't been charged to my knowledge.


 
I forget the exact law details but the Brits can hold someone for about 30 days without charging them under the terrorism act or something like that.

I wouldn't be so focused on suicide bombers, they are the flavor of the month but never discount a planted bomb or poison or gas/chem/bio. The Brits are past experts at this kind of thing and will be attacking this issue in many ways. As has been said, they have a huge homegrown problem with radical Muslims that isn't going away anytime soon.
Good luck to the Brits, I hope the games go off without a hitch.


----------



## 0699 (Jul 8, 2012)

Just my opinion, but why go after a hard target when you could do a soft one?  I can think of 5-6 soft target ideas off the top of my head that would cause more of an uproar and panic among the populace than hitting a hard target like the Olympics.  Plenty of places out there that people go to every day that, if hit, would cause much more of a "it could happen to me" fear.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 8, 2012)

I could foresee a soft target in the same AO of the Olympics but outside of the perimeter.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 8, 2012)

Even a failed attempt, if in the public eye, is a successful incident.

The problem is the venue is sooooo spread out......going to be a bitch to cover all of it. But it looks like they are taking an early offensive stance


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 8, 2012)

UKSS and Special Branch are both pretty good at what they do, I have no idea how they do it but they seem to do it exceptionally well. Will this stop a determined attack? Possibly not but I would suspect that a single terrorist would be far more likely to succeed than an organised group who are more likely to be detected.

So there's definitely the possibility but I would consider it "probably unlikely." (How's that for wiggle room?).


----------



## policemedic (Jul 9, 2012)

0699 said:


> Just my opinion, but why go after a hard target when you could do a soft one? I can think of 5-6 soft target ideas off the top of my head that would cause more of an uproar and panic among the populace than hitting a hard target like the Olympics. Plenty of places out there that people go to every day that, if hit, would cause much more of a "it could happen to me" fear.


 
We think alike.


----------



## JBS (Jul 9, 2012)

They'll almost certainly try and almost certainly fail.  I read somewhere there is an unprecedented number of plain clothes LE, and a record number of military snooping around as well as hundreds of surveillance vehicles and an augmentation of non LE security in plain clothes with everybody looking for even the slightest sign of something out of line. Thousands of mall cops on every block, each trying to sieze the opportunity to catch a terrorist.  I've also read they're rolling out an enormous number of aerial drones - most of them tiny things that are going to be hard to spot in those muggy London skies.  Between all that and the thousands of networked cameras, I think we'll see them rounded up in bunches.  But there's little doubt that despite the place crawling with more sets of hungry eyes than ever before, they're still dumb enough to try.


----------



## goon175 (Jul 9, 2012)

SO I guess if one wants to start surveilling and planning an attach, just get a haircut, dress in nicer clothes, look like your in shape, put an ear piece in and wear sunglasses. You'll blend right in...


----------



## QC (Jul 10, 2012)

Well this is rather hard core. 
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/tech...ons-and-ranges-londons-olympic-missiles/2468/

The United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense is not messing around when it comes to security for the upcoming 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London. The most demonstrative example of military preparedness for the games has been the controversial decision to set up a series of ground-to-air missile bases in various spots around Olympic Park, including two sites located on residential buildings. Locals are upset, but that's not stopping the MoD.


----------



## Gypsy (Jul 11, 2012)

Pardon my ignorance but aren't the "bobbies" not allowed to carry a weapon?


----------



## QC (Jul 11, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> Pardon my ignorance but aren't the "bobbies" not allowed to carry a weapon?


 
Not any more I think. But the rocket guys are Army.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 11, 2012)

Gypsy said:


> Pardon my ignorance but aren't the "bobbies" not allowed to carry a weapon?


 
There are a number of armed police officers in the Met.  They aren't the majority, but there's a bunch of them.


----------



## 0699 (Jul 11, 2012)

policemedic said:


> There are a number of armed police officers in the Met. They aren't the majority, but there's a bunch of them.


 
Guess they're realizing that disarming the civilian good guys doesn't make for a polite society...


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 11, 2012)

Are you referring to the police or to normal people?


----------



## 0699 (Jul 11, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Are you referring to the police or to normal people?


 
Yes.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 11, 2012)

Right. Because with the police I fully agree but I don't particularly agree with normal people carrying. But that's a cultural difference more than anything.


----------



## 0699 (Jul 12, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Right. Because with the police I fully agree but I don't particularly agree with normal people carrying. But that's a cultural difference more than anything.


 
Then we'll have to agree to disagree.  I have zero issues with non-LEOs carrying weapons.  IMO, if more law abiding citizens carried weapons, we'd have less issues overall.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 12, 2012)

SpitfireV said:


> Right. Because with the police I fully agree but I don't particularly agree with normal people carrying. But that's a cultural difference more than anything.


 
Yeah.  It's a fundamental aspect of our culture here.


----------



## Gypsy (Jul 14, 2012)

policemedic said:


> There are a number of armed police officers in the Met. They aren't the majority, but there's a bunch of them.


 
Well that's better than none...


----------



## Gypsy (Jul 14, 2012)

0699 said:


> Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I have zero issues with non-LEOs carrying weapons. IMO, if more law abiding citizens carried weapons, we'd have less issues overall.


 
An armed society is a polite society.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 14, 2012)

Yeah sure thing.


----------



## RetPara (Jul 24, 2012)

Any surveillance or planning is already done.  The lone wacko scenario is the most difficult to stop.  Any type of MassCas event caused by explosive, gas, or bugs during the Olympics is a win.


----------

