Ghestapo style screening for UK train and tube stations despite no Olympic Bombs.

Run_to_da_hills

Many of us including myself were expecting a false flag terror strike at the recent Olympic games that would help usher in an immediate array of military style security measures across the UK's public transport system. It now looks like they are going ahead this anyway despite nothing happening at the Olympics.

I guess the authorises will make it very difficult and cumbersome for those that do not have proper ID on them and more than likely they will encourage passengers to adapt for registered smart card passes to streamline movement.

The exact same thing is happening right across America.

Fresh consideration is to be given to the introduction of airport-style mass security screening at mainline rail stations and across London's tube network.

The Home Office has launched a search for new and emerging technologies that are capable of rapidly screening huge numbers of passengers and which could be used in major train and tube stations and across the tube network.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/19/train-tube-stations-security-screening

golden lane

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many of us including myself were expecting a false flag terror strike at the recent Olympic games that would help usher in an immediate array of military style security measures across the UK's public transport system. It now looks like they are going ahead this anyway despite nothing happening at the Olympics.

I guess the authorises will make it very difficult and cumbersome for those that do not have proper ID on them and more than likely they will encourage passengers to adapt for registered smart card passes to streamline movement.

The exact same thing is happening right across America.

Fresh consideration is to be given to the introduction of airport-style mass security screening at mainline rail stations and across London's tube network.

The Home Office has launched a search for new and emerging technologies that are capable of rapidly screening huge numbers of passengers and which could be used in major train and tube stations and across the tube network.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/19/train-tube-stations-security-screening[/QUOTE]

is that going to be a problem.......do you not want to be secure..????

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many of us including myself were expecting a false flag terror strike at the recent Olympic games that would help usher in an immediate array of military style security measures across the UK's public transport system. It now looks like they are going ahead this anyway despite nothing happening at the Olympics.

Come on be honest you did more that "expect it", you were predicting and preaching about it, btw how did that work out?

It seems that you were totally wrong abut that despite all your research, why should this theory be any different? pretty sure you have the same information at the heart of this theory... continue the research.

Run_to_da_hills

golden lane wrote: »

is that going to be a problem.......do you not want to be secure..????

Not if you are Muslim or Brazilian. :eek:

Gee Bag

You were very quiet for a week after the illuminati forgot to nuke the Olympics

There is nothing in this story. The Home Office are looking for screening technology so people don't get blown up on the tube. This has happened before (however, in your head that was part of some evil masterplan).

The comparison to the Gestapo demonstrates your tenuos grasp of history. Try reading a book rather than random sh1te on the internet.

nyarlothothep

To be honest, any arguments pertaining to security are even more ridiculous in this context of using what? trains?! Basically you can't eliminate risk and managing it to this extent does more harm than good to civil liberties, ease of transportation use and you know, generally not being psychologically conditioned to jump at the sight of your own shadow, this entire idea is beyond stupid, it actually damages what infinitesimal faith in humanity I had before. It's borne of reactive paranoid hysteria coupled with a desire to control, let me think when have we seen this mentality before??? Witchhunts for one. Primitive, extremely primitive. I hope that such an inane, irrational, cretinous, hysterical, domineering, greed driven plan is never implemented and that rational thinking will prevail, at least in this one instance, I mean it seldom does with government policy but seriously, apart from nuclear war, this should be an obvious example of what not to do.

Channel Zero

For the record, i don't believe martial law is coming or any bollocks like that from Alex ****ing Jones. But like a lot of these things, there can be an element of truth in there to what these people say, even Alex.

Naomi Wolf talks about it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/15/new-totalitarianism-surveillance-technology

The war of terror, the military-industrial complex and the surveilance industry. A lot of it boils down to contracts and money if you ask me.

Problem-reaction-solution. The same people who hold sway in the House of Commons and the Pentagram are the very same ones who benefit from these contracts and measures. That's why they had no problem selling Mr. Gadaffi hundreds of millions in weapons while at the same time placing him at the top of their most wanted list.

golden lane

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not if you are Muslim or Brazilian. :eek:

so the muslims and brazillians don't want to be safe......????????

Run_to_da_hills

Channel Zero wrote: »

Problem-reaction-solution. The same people who hold sway in the House of Commons and the Pentagram are the very same ones who benefit from these contracts and measures. That's why they had no problem selling Mr. Gadaffi hundreds of millions in weapons while at the same time placing him at the top of their most wanted list.

Similar backhander instance occurred in the US with the development of the TSA and contracts for XRay scanners and other security devices in the wake of 9/11 and follow up false flag underwear bomber incidents. There is huge profit in scaremongering the masses.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not if you are Muslim or Brazilian. :eek:

I reckon as many Brazilians have died in Catholic religious events as have died on the tube in the last 20 years. Perhaps they are part of a conspiracy too?

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is huge profit in scaremongering the masses.

Can you give us any sort of comparative figures for the cost to transport companies/airports/the economy in general for providing this extra security versus the amount of extra money made by the companies selling a few security scanners every year? Because I think you will find that one figure dwarfs the other...

JustinDee

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many of us including myself were expecting a false flag terror strike at the recent Olympic games . . .

Really? Many of 'you'? Disappointed in the end were you?
Your martial law claims are limp. I for one am pleased that when in London, the underground system is monitored for that special other kind of nut and I can go more safely than if what you appear to wish for were in charge.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you give us any sort of comparative figures for the cost to transport companies/airports/the economy in general for providing this extra security versus the amount of extra money made by the companies selling a few security scanners every year? Because I think you will find that one figure dwarfs the other...

I name one .... Gun sales in America


Look at the bigger picture Monty

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

I name one .... Gun sales in America

Sorry Weisses, you are naming one what? I'm not sure what point you are making.

Chazz Michael Michaels

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

despite nothing happening at the Olympics.

Even though you predicted something would happen. :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

JustinDee wrote: »

Really? Many of 'you'? Disappointed in the end were you?

I would conceder your comment as vial and against the charter of this forum. .

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sorry Weisses, you are naming one what? I'm not sure what point you are making.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is huge profit in scaremongering the masses.

I just took it one step further ... keep the masses afraid and you can even get away with illegally starting a war .. that for some company's means huge profits

Chazz Michael Michaels

JustinDee wrote: »

Really? Many of 'you'? Disappointed in the end were you?

Don't give them excuses to report you, that's their only defence.

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

I just took it one step further ... keep the masses afraid and you can even get away with illegally starting a war .. that for some company's means huge profits

Indeed, but for everyone else it means big losses as the money that is taxed to pay for these wars comes out of everyone else's pockets - so it hurts nearly all the big corporations while it benefits only a few - Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman and a few others. And even the biggest of these (Boeing) is only about a quarter of the size* of Procter and Gamble, the guys who make your toothpaste, washing powder and Pringles.

It doesn't make sense to me that the interests of all the other big corporations would somehow be sacrificed to suit a few corporations - it's not like they don't know how to lobby the government themselves.

*by market cap

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Even though you predicted something would happen. :rolleyes:

I honestly thought as well something could/would happen

The A/A missiles on rooftops were not part of a conspiracy AFAIK ... so there was concern among the authorities as well

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

I honestly thought as well something could/would happen

The A/A missiles on rooftops were not part of a conspiracy AFAIK ... so there was concern among the authorities as well

Sorry, what I meant was the predicted 'false flag' operations, not an actual attack from external (or internal aggressors) forces.

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

I name one .... Gun sales in America


Look at the bigger picture Monty

A lot of burglaries in an area - alarm sales will go up.

or

A lot of burglaries in an area - alarm sales will go up - ergo burglaries have to be a false flag by the alarm comanies to sell more alarms.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed, but for everyone else it means big losses as the money that is taxed to pay for these wars comes out of everyone else's pockets - so it hurts nearly all the big corporations while it benefits only a few - Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman and a few others. And even the biggest of these (Boeing) is only about a quarter of the size* of Procter and Gamble, the guys who make your toothpaste, washing powder and Pringles.

It doesn't make sense to me that the interests of all the other big corporations would somehow be sacrificed to suit a few corporations - it's not like they don't know how to lobby the government themselves.

*by market cap

No that's why gun sales sprung up in my mind ... very powerful lobby and for what? ... All based on fear So with examples from RTDH and a bit of searching you can come up with plenty of company's / governments who benefit hugely by keeping the masses afraid

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

No that's why gun sales sprung up in my mind ... very powerful lobby and for what? ... All based on fear So with examples from RTDH and a bit of searching you can come up with plenty of company's / governments who benefit hugely by keeping the masses afraid

Are there any companies that would be set to lose from keeping

• masses afraid
• starting war
• thus increasing price of oil
• and increasing the price of related products
• thus increasing the cost of doing business
• and decreasing the spending power of consumers

No company stands to lose from the above, and gains nothing from war/fear?

No company?

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

A lot of burglaries in an area - alarm sales will go up.

or

A lot of burglaries in an area - alarm sales will go up - ergo burglaries have to be a false flag by the alarm comanies to sell more alarms.

My post had nothing to do with a false flag ... look what quote i responded to and then tell me where my comparison is wrong

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Are there any companies that would be set to lose from keeping

• masses afraid
• starting war
• thus increasing price of oil
• and increasing the price of related products
• thus increasing the cost of doing business
• and decreasing the spending power of consumers

No company stands to lose from the above, and gains nothing from war/fear?

No company?

One company's loss is another company's gain

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

No that's why gun sales sprung up in my mind ... very powerful lobby and for what? ... All based on fear So with examples from RTDH and a bit of searching you can come up with plenty of company's / governments who benefit hugely by keeping the masses afraid

I already did the searching for you and named the companies that benefit the most from war. If you are talking about gun companies and such, they are actually tiny tiddlers economically speaking. I think Smith and Wesson was sold for about £10 million pounds a decade ago. To put that into some context, Kerry Group - maker of Kerrygold butter amongst other things - is worth 6.6 billion euros.

And of course right-wing CTers will tell you that booming gun sales are a good thing and that 'false flag' attacks by crazy gunmen are organised by Barack Obama and the NWO to stop guns being sold to the public.

It seems to me that my position is somewhere between you on one side of the debate and RTDH way over on the far right on the other side.

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

One company's loss is another company's gain

But why wouldn't the losing companies kick up a fuss? They are also very powerful with strong lobbies. They just accept their lot? They play along with the global conspiracy even though they lose from it?

Sorry, but any time I apply common sense to these ideas they just fall down for me.

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

One company's loss is another company's gain

Yes, but what I've tried to point out is that only a couple of companys gain while hundreds of thousands of companies lose out. This doesn't make sense if the big corporations have any influence on the government (and I think most people agree that, often unfortunately, they do).

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I already did the searching for you and named the companies that benefit the most from war. If you are talking about gun companies and such, they are actually tiny tiddlers economically speaking. I think Smith and Wesson was sold for about £10 million pounds a decade ago. To put that into some context, Kerry Group - maker of Kerrygold butter amongst other things - is worth 6.6 billion euros.

And of course right-wing CTers will tell you that booming gun sales are a good thing and that 'false flag' attacks by crazy gunmen are organised by Barack Obama and the NWO to stop guns being sold to the public.

It seems to me that my position is somewhere between you on one side of the debate and RTDH way over on the far right on the other side.

Look

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is huge profit in scaremongering the masses.

This is what i responded to and it is true imo ... There is huge profit to be made ... the fact that alot of americans feel safer with guns doesn't keep them from buying kerry gold butter just to give an example ... The cost of going to war is of no concern to the company's who benefit from it .. as seen in the Iraq war

hooradiation

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many of us including myself were expecting a false flag terror strike at the recent Olympic games that would help usher in an immediate array of military style security measures across the UK's public transport system. It now looks like they are going ahead this anyway despite nothing happening at the Olympics.

I guess the authorises will make it very difficult and cumbersome for those that do not have proper ID on them and more than likely they will encourage passengers to adapt for registered smart card passes to streamline movement.

The exact same thing is happening right across America.

Fresh consideration is to be given to the introduction of airport-style mass security screening at mainline rail stations and across London's tube network.

The Home Office has launched a search for new and emerging technologies that are capable of rapidly screening huge numbers of passengers and which could be used in major train and tube stations and across the tube network.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/19/train-tube-stations-security-screening

Given that on a busy day Heathrow will see about 213,000 people where as the tube will see several million per day the entirety of this comparison is fucking nonsense.

"Ghestapo" eh? Good thing you're learning to apply the methodology of all these non existent "false flags" that you so despise.

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

But why wouldn't the losing companies kick up a fuss? They are also very powerful with strong lobbies. They just accept their lot? They play along with the global conspiracy even though they lose from it?

How are they losing out ? ...

old_aussie

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many of us including myself were expecting a false flag terror strike at the recent Olympic

Can you tell me who the "us" are?

weisses

old_aussie wrote: »

Can you tell me who the "us" are?

me ... me ....me .... but in the end it was an to obvious target for a False Flag ... should have know that from the start

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

This is what i responded to and it is true imo ... There is huge profit to be made ... the fact that alot of americans feel safer with guns doesn't keep them from buying kerry gold butter just to give an example ... The cost of going to war is of no concern to the company's who benefit from it .. as seen in the Iraq war

I'm not arguing that there aren't profits to be made for a small part of the economy and a small number of big corporations - the point is that the money they make is being taxed (directly and indirectly) from the 99% of the economy and the 99.9% of big corporations.

Why do all of these big corporations, big banks etc. not have the same influence in high places as a couple of weapons companies?

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

How are they losing out ? ...

Because the money to pay for the wars and weapons is money that is effectively being taken out of their pockets through taxes and changed consumer behaviour. To use your own words, look at the big picture.

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

My post had nothing to do with a false flag ... look what quote i responded to and then tell me where my comparison is wrong

Apologies, just see that now, thought you were referring to false flag.

In essence the same principle applies though, who benefits from plane crashes? train and ferry companies - very easy to make links

Who benefits from terrorist attacks and mass shootings? security companies, gun companies - an easy link to make again

Entertaining the links is good fun, actually proving the mal intent is quite another.

weisses

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not arguing that there aren't profits to be made for a small part of the economy and a small number of big corporations - the point is that the money they make is being taxed (directly and indirectly) from the 99% of the economy and the 99.9% of big corporations.

Why do all of these big corporations, big banks etc. not have the same influence in high places as a couple of weapons companies?

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

That's just the tip of the iceberg .... But were getting OT i think

Monty Burnz

weisses wrote: »

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-25-most-vicious-iraq-war-profiteers/

That's just the tip of the iceberg ....

But as I keep trying to explain, it's the rest of the iceberg who are paying for this - and I can't understand why we are expected to believe these thousands of big corporations would have less influence than the few that benefit.

weisses wrote: »

But were getting OT i think

Yeah, I guess we are.

Brown Bomber

JustinDee wrote: »

Really? Many of 'you'? Disappointed in the end were you? .

... and the basis for this is?

JustinDee wrote: »

Your martial law claims are limp. I for one am pleased that when in London, the underground system is monitored for that special other kind of nut and I can go more safely than if what you appear to wish for were in charge.

...meaning?

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

How are they losing out ? ...

• masses afraid
• starting war
• thus increasing price of oil
• and increasing the price of related products
• thus increasing the cost of doing business
• and decreasing the spending power of consumers

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

• masses afraid
• starting war
• thus increasing price of oil
• and increasing the price of related products
• thus increasing the cost of doing business
• and decreasing the spending power of consumers

Yeah your list to simplistic imo ...but its a bit more complicated then that .. and its not only war company's are making huge profits by scaremongering ... lets talk about swine flu

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

Yeah your list to simplistic imo ...but its a bit more complicated then that .. and its not only war company's are making huge profits by scaremongering ... lets talk about swine flu

I know it is, I am an economist for a living. But my simplification is for the purposes of allowing the message to be easily understood. Furthermore, it is just one example of how a company could lose. Finally, just because something is simplified doesn't mean that is it fundamentally flawed. If you are capable of joining the dots inbetween you should see that. If not, then I can explain.

al28283

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Not if you are Muslim or Brazilian. :eek:

How exactly would Muslim or Brazillian people be less secure if everyone on the tube were screened?

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

I know it is, I am an economist for a living. But my simplification is for the purposes of allowing the message to be easily understood. Furthermore, it is just one example of how a company could lose. Finally, just because something is simplified doesn't mean that is it fundamentally flawed. If you are capable of joining the dots inbetween you should see that. If not, then I can explain.

Its not fundamentally flawed I said it was to simplistic imo .. In the end my believe still stands that Company's make huge amounts of money by scaremongering I gave a couple of examples ... will there be companies losing out on it ... yes of course

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

Its not fundamentally flawed I said it was to simplistic imo .. In the end my believe still stands that Company's make huge amounts of money by scaremongering I gave a couple of examples ... will there be companies losing out on it ... yes of course

So if companies have the power to influence government (which they do), why would the losing companies accept these losses?

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

So if companies have the power to influence government (which they do), why would the losing companies accept these losses?

What can they do about it? besides lobbying their arse off?

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

What can they do about it? besides lobbying their arse off?

I thought they were all-powerful?

weisses

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

I thought they were all-powerful?

where ?

Chazz Michael Michaels

weisses wrote: »

where ?

This forum would lead me to believe that large multinational companies have a sort of omnipotence when it comes to controlling world affairs.

weisses

If you disagree with company's making loads of money by scaremongering then say so

Said it before .. how about swine flu and what the taxpayer paid for this hype