Surface-To-Air Missiles At London Olympics 395
First time accepted submitter TheGift73 writes "I have to admit, when I first read about this I thought it was a hoax, but unfortunately it's true. The UK government is considering placing surface-to-air missiles on residential buildings in London for the duration of the London Olympics. From the article: 'The Ministry of Defence is considering placing surface-to-air missiles on residential flats during the Olympics.
An east London estate, where 700 people live, has received leaflets saying a "Higher Velocity Missile system" could be placed on a water tower.
A spokesman said the MoD had not yet decided whether to deploy ground based air defence systems during the event.'"
And the residents are complaining (Score:3)
Those Poms will complain about anything.
I'd be wrapped to have a missile array on my roof!
Re:And the residents are complaining (Score:5, Funny)
I know! It'd be the bomb! (...especially if manufactured on Friday).
Re: (Score:2)
Those Poms will complain about anything.
Perhaps the Poms would have preferred Pom-Poms [wikipedia.org], rather than missiles? :)
Re:And the residents are complaining (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd be wrapped to have a missile array on my roof!
I'm thinking the exact same thing!
You see, I live on the coast, and there was recently this company a bit up the road who set up shop giving helicopter rides over the more scenic bits of our county, and sometimes they can really irritate, especially on weekends, so...
Re:And the residents are complaining (Score:5, Funny)
You wouldn't be. I have the misfortune to own a place with a great view over a convention center often used for various government meetings. Since two of my balconies overlook their terraces and hall windows from above, every fucking time they have some diminutive French, Italian or Russian head of state I have to remove my flowers and my telescope tripods from the balcony, keep the windows closed, get a badge from the security scum that infests the stairwell, endure their cheap cigarette smoke, bad breath, awful manners, atrocious looks and general incompetence.
The worst was when the wife of the first black president came over a few months ago, they even ordered us to remove our cars from the parking lot in front of the place. I don't get it, I heard she was really brave dodging bullets in Bosnia back in her days with the military.
So far we have been lucky not to have an expensive weapon system mounted on the rooftop, but I don't even want to contemplate what that would mean. And they never, ever compensate you for the trouble.
To sum it up, having to deal with a security implement in your building sucks major ass, and should be avoided at all costs and complained against loudly at every opportunity.
Re:And the residents are complaining (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I have the login joshua and I want to play (Score:5, Funny)
London missile defense
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Want to know how I know you're full of shit?
The password is Nigel.
Curious Games (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have the login joshua and I want to play (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I have the login joshua and I want to play (Score:5, Funny)
Can we have a -1 basic grammar option for moderators?
We'd need a metric fuck load more mod points, and a special mod just for "loose" and "lose".
It would never happen, though, because once readers started to clean up their grammar, it would just make the editors look even worse.
Kinda makes me wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
other way around? (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe sports are a way to channel certain instincts without the massive damage of war
Re:Kinda makes me wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Good idea. I think the war would be cheaper, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, trust me, we already tried that. I was called The Great War at the time, but turned out no to be so great, so it was renamed World War I later.
Re:Kinda makes me wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of sending kids who are full of "vinegar and piss" and don't know any better off to die, why not send the people who are so eager to send others off to die for profit instead?
Translation: If you plan to attend... (Score:3)
...fly into Charles de Gaulle and drive.
HUMAN SHIELDS! (Score:5, Funny)
"UK government uses civilian residents as human shields to protect their missile sites".
It'll make the terrorists think twice before blowing up those flats to eliminate the SAM batteries.
Re:HUMAN SHIELDS! (Score:4, Funny)
Eliminate them? Hell, jump across from the neighbours' place and STEAL THEM.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the UK. You better find a way to disable all the cameras before even considering stealing them.
Re: (Score:3)
IOC... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IOC... (Score:5, Funny)
Yup. When one of those damn pirate drones [thepiratebay.se] flies in to steal the events from the BBC and NBC, they'll feel full SAM stopping power!
</uppermanagementpov>
So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Dunno, an air burst explosion would almost always be preferable to an explosion directly on the ground. You'd have to have a pretty serious misfire situation to make things worse. There's also the deterrent factor, just having the visible defense will disenchant some who might think of piloting a small aircraft into the games.
And... it creates loads of jobs just making the missiles, installing them, maintaining them, covering them in the press....
Of course, if it convinces the terrorists to switch from a lightweight high-profile flying assault to a simple Oklahoma City style ground delivered Big Bomb, that could be a turn for the worse...
Hey, it's London, bombs go off all the time anyway, or at least they did 20 years ago when I used to travel there.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone could make a really clear point by getting a Oklahoma City style bomb, and detonating it near the SAM sites not the stadium.
Minimum casualties, maximum awkwardness from the politicians at the press conference.
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, it's London, bombs go off all the time anyway, or at least they did 20 years ago when I used to travel there.
I take it you're Irish?
Re: (Score:3)
Dunno, an air burst explosion would almost always be preferable to an explosion directly on the ground
Nobody is going to steal a jetliner out of the air any more. If someone were going to crash a plane into the olympics they'd have to steal it and then take off, plenty of time to scramble a fighter and take it out. So they'll be coming in at low altitude anyway.
The joke gets worse (Score:5, Interesting)
This has been a farce from day 1, starting with the chronically underestimated budget for the whole thing, and the unfounded, misguided claims that it would be profitable for the country and spark unprecedented 'urban renewal', as well as a renaissance in sports for everyone in the country as people became inspired.
As each and every one of these things has been debunked, the fanatics and toadies have continued to shout them, just louder. The level of denial here is incredible. The best one I've heard so far was putting the lie to the idea that it would get the population back into sports. Studies have shown that this doesn't happen in host countries, for the olympics, the commonwealth games or whatever the event. When faced with this the organisers just repeated their feelgood bunk about how inspirational the whole thing was, despite having just been shown unequivocally that the opposite is true.
So now surface to air missiles? Well I suppose a gathering that big could be a target. I know what londoners will be saying though, the same as they said from the start (when I was living there) - "We never wanted them in the first place".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Australia basically lucked out in having the last truly successful Olympics. Since then computers, the internet and the drive for participation over sucked in by marketing passivity is taking over.
Whiny, it's not lying it's acting product promoting, athletes and their lawyers, as just so yesterday, last millennium in fact. Olympic gold medal winners are promoting crappier and crappier products, it's getting so bad, using the reduces the appearance value of a product rather than enhancing it.
Of course n
Re:The joke gets worse (Score:5, Interesting)
McOlympics (Score:4, Funny)
Australia basically lucked out in having the last truly successful Olympics. Since then computers, the internet and the drive for participation over sucked in by marketing passivity is taking over.
Whiny, it's not lying it's acting product promoting, athletes and their lawyers, as just so yesterday, last millennium in fact. Olympic gold medal winners are promoting crappier and crappier products, it's getting so bad, using the reduces the appearance value of a product rather than enhancing it.
I stopped taking the Olympics seriously when McDonalds became a sponsor.
OK, that's not true, I stopped taking the Olympics seriously when Roy and HG got involved.
We NEED these rockets. (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, we DO have to protect Airstrip 1, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points. I tip my hat you sir. Excellent Orwell reference.
The hottest seats for the london olympics... (Score:3, Funny)
... are in an ultralight air craft.
That's one advertisement you will not see during this year's olymics!
They use civilians as human shields!!! Hostages!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that the claim, US and other NATO countries' media makes every time a victim of their invasion tries to place any air defenses in their cities?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh course the states did it as well.
Operation Dark Shield.
Re: (Score:3)
And there's a term for noting such "differences": rationalizing hypocrisy, as few countries have been as consistently aggressive over the last 100 years as Britain and the United States.
anything to keep away unwanted... (Score:2)
anything to keep away unwanted... photographers [slashdot.org]! ;^)
Really?... (Score:3)
Well, the Internet Generation just hasn't really grasped just how horrific the Battle of Britain was.
But hey, those bunkers are only what, 70 years old? Some blood, sweat, toil and tears will get those spit spot in a jiffy.
Keep calm and buy our officially licensed London 2012 merchandise!
bunch o fail. (Score:2)
London Calling.
Salt Lake City 2002 (Score:5, Informative)
The winter games in 2002 in SLC had unprecedented military participation. There were radar and missile emplacements all over the foothills and there were troops all over the place including Apache helicopters and F-16's patrolling the skies during the days major events. The SLC international airport was off limits entirely to unscheduled flights and the military was authorized to shoot down any plane violating SLC airspace.
We see a lot of air traffic being that Hill Airforce base is close and Fort Williams is where the Apaches train but I've never seen so many military air craft all over the place.
Residential Buildings? Really? (Score:2)
If this is true...
Has anyone stopped to consider that if it came to situation that required ground to air missiles, by putting the launchers on residential buildings they have just made civilian homes prime targets...
Really? They are considering this?
Re: (Score:2)
And even if they did, that is the trade off, 30,000 casualties or at most a few hundred. This really isn't anything new. Since at least the 2002 Winter Olympics if not before SAM's ha
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that devious Obama.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I'd be glad to have one my house. Those kids'll think twice before playing on my lawn...
Terrorist target? (Score:3)
I guess they fear that having the Olympics will make London a target for terrorists.
I guess somebody will have to explain it to the terrorists that they had best wait for the show to begin. Otherwise they might continue bombing busses and subway stations in the meantime and not have any anybody left to fly planes over the Olympic site come late July and August.
Where went wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought that we invaded Iraq to make us safer. I thought the war in Afghanistan would make us safer. They told us that all this war, imprisonment without trial, assassination, torture, mass surveillance, nude scans and enhanced pat downs would make us safer.
And yet now, after more than ten years of this, we've reached the stage that we're considering placing surface to fucking air missiles on top of people's houses in the middle of London.
What the hell happened? Are we losing this 'war on terror'?
Re:Where went wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Greetings and Salutations;
No...we are not LOSING the war on Terror. We, the citizens, have already LOST it. We have turned over unprecedented amounts of power and control to the government, and given up many of the liberties that our ancestors shed rivers of blood to take for themselves. It seems to me that the citizens of America and Great Britain have been turned into mewling, fearful infants by the deliberate actions taken by the government to re-enforce the idea that the only "safe" path is to let the "authorities" handle any situation. At least in America, have been brainwashed into an almost insane belief that life should be perfectly safe and any time that anything goes awry, we are to run to the government to fix the problem! While our love of CCTV cameras scattered around populated areas does run behind that of the government of Great Britain, it appears that the US government is rushing to catch up. It used to be that the only people that were under 24 hour per day surveillance were the prisoners in maximum security prisons. Using the Boogie Man of terrorist attacks, our governments seem to be on the road to turning the entire country into a high security prison.
I fear that we have become an embarrassment to the spirits of our Grandparents, who showed such courage and strength of will during the horrors of the 2d World War. Can we regain that legacy? Change is always possible, but, I do not think that there is the strength of will left to do so. Rather, we will continue to accept the lies of the government, and continue to curl up into a little ball, hoping that if we ignore the problems, they will all go away.
On that happy thought....
Pleasant Dreams
Bee Man Dave
Re:Where went wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
First, London is not in the US, so I'm not sure what the fuck any of your post has to do with anything.
He's called "Tom the Pom", so I'm going to guess that he's English. You may not have realised this, but the UK invaded Iraq (get the WMD!) & Afghanistan (get Al Qaeda!) too. We also "renditioned" people to be tortured (former FM Jack Straw is currently being sued for it), held people without trial (check out Abu Qatada, a thoroughly unpleasant man who we're deporting after a decade of imprisonment, despite the minor inconvenience that he's never been convicted of any crimes), and have TSA style airport madness (double the fun when visiting the US)
Unless you've been living in a cave for the last decade, you can get your own citations.
raining white hot shrapnel over a crowded city (Score:3)
PULL! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, the U.K. are going all out on this one... (Score:4, Funny)
For the past Olympic games, the hosting country just made do with fireworks....
To step up to actual missiles, now that is going to take a lot of effort to top for future hosting countries !!
These were in place for the Athens Olympics (Score:5, Informative)
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6203/6074130550_928b676ecc_z.jpg [staticflickr.com]
Although that was in an open, unpopulated area. Placing them on a residential complex is obviously a step up though.
What Are They Worried About? (Score:3)
You might have to worry about single person aircraft, but those don't really do all that much damage. We had some jackass fly one into an IRS building a few years ago and I think he was the only one who died. Sure, crashing one into the crowd might result in 40-50 deaths, but you probably have more people than that die in London from paper cuts on an average day (Ooh, maybe a single person aircraft could drop sharp paper leaflets... Better not tell the terrorists about THAT...) It's much more likely that you'll accidentally shoot down a traffic helicopter than any legitimate threat, and have a flaming ball of burning traffic helicopter crash into the streets of London.
You're not thinking 4 dimensionally, Marty! (Score:3, Funny)
No no, for the Olympics they'll be using... wait for it... wait for it... Javelins! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No no, for the Olympics they'll be using... wait for it... wait for it... Javelins! [wikipedia.org]
Javelins are Surface to Surface Missiles. Just like its namesake. They are designed to take out armour of all kinds ( no tank today can withstand a direct hit in Top Attack mode ), and have been successfully used to take out buildings, cars, bicycles, APC's, the list goes on.
London needs (lol) Surface to Air Missiles.
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing the American FGM-148 Javelin anti-armour missile with the British Javelin surface-to-air missile. Click the link, above.
You won't be saying that... (Score:5, Funny)
... when Daleks invade. Again.
Re:You won't be saying that... (Score:5, Funny)
Nah - Daleks can be stopped by installing a simple staircase.
That was the old Daleks... The new ones can fly! ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:loss of words (Score:5, Insightful)
Ditto... I'm not so cynical of governments to deny that terrorist attacks have been made at the Olympics in even relatively peaceful times. But surface-to-air missiles? Why?
What is the minimum threshold for an airborne projectile's size to be shot down? After a certain threshold I start having trouble seeing someone lobbing a rocket/missile at the Olympics just because of the Olympics. Not only would it be practically a declaration of war against everyone in the world, but surely there would be more damaging targets if you just wanted to harm the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
but surely there would be more damaging targets if you just wanted to harm the UK.
In conventional warfare terms there are, but terrorists don't have the resources to wage such a conflict. They are forced to go after militarility insignificant but high profile targets that will induce terror in the general population.
Re:loss of words (Score:5, Funny)
This is just getting ridiculous.
I would agree. Cutting off the first letter of a quote 'he Ministry of Defence...' is something I would do while hurriedly posting quotes into MSN, not something an editor should do on a widely read website. Just ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
You know how long it takes to "scramble ze fighters"? Too long, in cases of "hey, that Airbus we thought was coming in to drop off tourists just decided to go kamikaze on us".
And do you know how insanely expensive keeping even a handful of fighters in the air 24x7 is? A lot. Not to mention the noise, and the intimidation factor (despite what /. thinks, the government does not want to induce general terror in their populace), and the chance of one of them crashing on accident OR shooting down a friendly plan
Re: (Score:2)
The barn doors open and a group of microlites fan out under the radar. Only vigilant SAM crews can save the day
Re:Air-Air Missiles? (Score:5, Insightful)
But we can scramble supersonically and the exclusion zone is large enough that anything save a hostile invasion force is probably going to be flying slow enough to intercept before it reaches the olympic site.
The zone is nearly 100 miles across. 50 miles at 500kts is around 5 minutes. The Eurofighters are going to be based at Northolt, within the area and around maybe 20 miles from the stadium. At speed they could get there in a minute or two.
There will be an AWACS flying around at all times as well as the usual ATC services looking out for unidentified aircraft. Radar is pretty good these days, if you fly in on anything of reasonable size without telling them, they will find you and they will scramble something after you.
I fail to see how just having fast jets on alert isn't enough?
http://olympics.airspacesafety.com/airspace-restrictions/restrictions-14-july-2012-to-15-august-2012
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, it gets worse than that... it's pure idiocy to even try using the things as a defense.
If some jackass wanted to slam a plane into the crowd, they'd merely have to fly very fast and very low. Most missiles have a minimum effective altitude (due to the physics of speed, for starters). Most missiles also work on the principle of sending shrapnel into an enemy plane, hoping to tear it apart... few (if any?) are made to simply blow a plane up.
Finally, with sufficient speed, no missile short of a full blown telephone-pole-sized SAM (we're talking massive multi-ton Soviet-style rigs) would completely stop a multi-ton object moving full-throttle at nearly 1,000 km/h. So instead of an intact aircraft slamming into a crowd, you now have a big flaming ball of metal flying into the crowd. Umm, okay...
The best you can hope for is to knock it off course, which in London just means that it'll slam into some other heavily-populated area full of buildings.
Seriously? Someone in security has been watching too many frickin' movies.
Re: (Score:2)
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Land-Based-Air-Defence/Starstreak-United-Kingdom.html [janes.com]
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Informative)
The full article is for subscribers only.
Mach 3.5, laser guided, whether it works against a motorcyclist depends on your "to hit" roll.
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Informative)
This thing simultaneously fires three laser guided, tungsten jacketed shells off the top of a rocket, travelling at Mach 3.5, each with half a kilogram of high explosive. They fly 1.5m apart to maximise the chance of hitting a fast moving object, they can out-turn a plane turning at 9Gs and any one of the three hitting is enough to tear through the armour of a modern APC, though the fragmentation alone would be enough to kill a person several meters away.
If you let me choose any weapon for seriously ruining the day of a motorcyclist from the top of a building, I could think of nothing better than this one. In fact, I still find it hard to believe that the British were actually crazy enough to build such a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sir, you know it's possible to shoot down an attacking aircraft away from its target, right?
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Informative)
He is mentioning the "away" is still full of London crowd. If a hostile plane can reach London itself, wherever it hits will cause loss of lives.
If the missiles are long or medium range SAMs, then there is no need to put it inside London and at the top of the apartment building. It appears therefore that the SAM is a short range.
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Buckingham Palace has a pretty low population density compared to its surrounding environs. I'm pretty sure if a plane smacked that it would raise a few complaints...
Long story short, there's really no part of that town that isn't heavily populated, a historical icon of some sort, or considered to be important as hell for some other reason. The best you could hope for is to knock it in the Thames, but doing that would require some real super-human planning and execution, and not a little bit of luck.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That Virginia Beach residential area and central London residentials are quite a different thing.
From Google Maps & Street View:
Virginia Beach: 2-story buildings covering one third of the surface.
London: ~4-story buildings on two thirds of the surface with seemingly much less floor area per apartment.
Wikipedia says, London has 7.5 times the population density of Virginia Beach.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless their exclusion zone is measured in a circle at least 100km wide (are we going to shut down Heathrow, then?), there won't be time to detect an inbound jet, sufficiently determine its intent, get permission to arm the weaponry, then actually shoot it down. At least, not with any confidence that the result avoids hitting buildings and population.
Not anywhere around London anyway... This is why I'm fairly safe in my assumption that by the time a missile launches, the jet will likely be in its terminal dive, or close enough to it to not really matter otherwise.
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
but the army boys! think of the poor army boys! this is their only chance to get in on some hot olympic tourist action.
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
i am an conscript in estonian defence forces in air defence batallion, i man a radar station and control fire of VSHORAD-s(Mistral) and AAA(ZU-23-2 "Sergei"). in private life i fly gliders as a hobby. so you could say i see both sides of the equation: pilots point of view and SAM operators point of view. and i say you can deffinetly avert the cource of passanger plane off a stadium full of people. sure it would still fall into a populated area but pretty much anything is better than a stadium full of people. using SAM-s at olympics isnt anything new eighter. speed is not a problem, the man at the top of decision making tree will know the second a plane breaks into air defence area and then its just a matter of yes/no getting down to SAM operators - and they will already be ready waiting for the go code, just a matter of pulling the trigger. and thats the worst case scenario where there is zero warning time
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Interesting)
The Olympic Village is in the middle of London, lined by civilian airports.
* London City airport with 200 flights per day is just 5km away (that's just 20 seconds at full speed, or 60 seconds at landing speed!)
* Heathrow airport with 1300 flights per day is just 30km away.
* Gatwick and Stansted airports are both 40km away, 1100 flights per day between them.
All the flights from these may overfly London, and Heathrow planes are often in holding patterns over Central London.
It's basically impossible to define a "air defence area" in London. And if a passenger plane accidentally strays into it, a pilot says "sorry, my mistake" on radio, what politician is still going to give the "go code" to shoot it down in 20 seconds?
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
Not anywhere around London anyway... This is why I'm fairly safe in my assumption that by the time a missile launches, the jet will likely be in its terminal dive, or close enough to it to not really matter otherwise.
The missiles involved sound like some sort of multiple round MANPAD on steroids that was designed to take out gunships or fast moving, low flying mud-movers. Not exactly your first choice for shooting down hijacked airliners so unless they are expecting air strikes on the Olympic stadiums or a gunship attack I think we can safely assume this measure is being taken mostly for propaganda value. Let's hope this doesn't backfire on the Britishers when the media, in a fit of collective reality detachment, launches a spectacular news analysis of what the damage will be if a jet airliner is shot down by a SAM and crashes in central London. I'm rather looking forward to the Olympics and it would be a pity if the tabloids were allowed to spoil it.
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Funny)
Unless their exclusion zone is measured in a circle at least 100km wide (are we going to shut down Heathrow, then?) [...]
We don't need an exclusion zone to shut down Heathrow for the duration of the Olympics. We've got immigration officials to do that for us!
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Funny)
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
A big ball of flame dissipating from 1000' is a lot better than a big ball of flame exploding on the ground, or IN a building. If the planes crashing into the World Trade Towers had exploded (and therefore released most of the fuel that caused the superstructure to melt) even 100' before they reached the buildings they'd still be standing today.
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, it gets worse than that... it's pure idiocy to even try using the things as a defense.
Silly me. All this time I thought it was just more security theater / thinking-of-the-children / penis extension.
Frankly, I find it amusing. Why bother getting a bomb on the plane when you can just shoot one instead?
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
I was watching Patriot missiles launches live on the BBC during Gulf War 1. 1,2,3 they went off, but number 3 turned right very quickly and exploded nearby. Turns out that a "Scud got through" and killed 28 soldiers at the same base these Patriots were fired from. Funny coincidence, especially with the Israeli clamour for the Patriot at that time as a missile shield.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they could use something along the line of a nuclear tipped ballistic missile interceptor, that ought to properly vaporize the plane mid-flight.
Although I guess there's that other problem with this particular solution.
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Funny)
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this insightful? Whether or not the UK is a nanny state, it has nothing to do with this. What, are they nannying their citizens with missiles?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:paranoid nanny state (Score:5, Informative)
Here is what it said:
Fewer than five per cent of Muslims polled believed they should separate themselves from non-Muslims, and fewer than 10 per cent believed it was acceptable for religious or political groups to use violence for political ends.
and
Almost 80 per cent agreed that the attacks on the London Underground in July 2005 had damaged the image of Muslims in Britain.
Hardly as as damning as you suggested. The right wing media in the UK has been doing its up most to portray Muslims as the enemies of the "truly British" white majority. I'm not saying there is no issues with Muslims in Britain, but anything negative written about them needs to be read with a whole heap of salt.
Re: (Score:3)
Now you linked to the daily mail, otherwise know as the daily hate. To show the bias read its article on the survey versus this one [ukpollingreport.co.uk] and you will see the hate filled anger the daily mail is going for.
The headline of the daily mail article is
Almost a quarter of Muslims believe 7/7 was justified
but the question asked in the survey was
To what extent do you agree that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the war on terror?
(To which 11% strongly agreed, 11% tended to agree, with it saying all agree was 22%. I don't know where th
Re: (Score:3)