No, it was probably precipitated by overreacting assholes like yourselves.
Bwaaahhh hahh hahh!!! Good to know the might of the American military can’t be swayed by a bit of media ‘outrage’ and online bickering!!!
You can get mad all you want, but this is how it is always done. Whenever something like the London bombing happens only essential personnel are allowed in the area until it is deemed safe. During 9-11 I couldn’t leave base for a few days (and I was in Texas), we had a bombing incident on that same base before 9-11 and we couldn’t even move from one part of our base to another without special permission. I mean, hell, they even have certain establishments in this city that I can’t visit because there could be dangers to personnel. This isn’t a personal snub to the Brits, it is just business as usual.
Is that what it takes to get the US military to overturn a decision, a few assholes who overreact?
Wow. Do the Iraqis know?
Yeah, I didn’t realise we had such power.
It’s almost encouraging.
Yeah, but wasn’t the entire country still effectively locked down? The tube was running again less than 24 hours after the bombs, London was back to normal by Monday with the exception of the actual crime scenes…it’s completely different
To repeat myself, at no point have I got mad.
And, again, I understand that this “is how it is always done”.
I just don’t think that is a very good argument or excuse.
It isn’t different and that is the point. The US military ALWAYS reacts like this. If there is any chance that there could be more injury inflicted they will keep non essential personnel away from the area. Example: We had a KKK rally over here a few weeks ago. All military personnel were forbidden from being anywhere near the area, either in support or protest, and only because there was a minor chance that violence could break out. I am telling you, it is normal for the military to keep non-essential people out of an area that still could offer a threat to its personnel. Sometimes it takes a few days for the right people (read:higher ups) to decide everything is all clear.
In that case, the US military’s reaction is ludicrous in 99.9% of situations. And was certainly ludicrous in this one.
I don’t know what to tell you. The military’s job is one that has inherent dangers for its people and these bans are one way that they try to minimize the dangers. I mean, lets face it, military members (either US or UK) are going to be natural targets for these people. I am sure that these procedures would be applied if the bombing happened in the US, UK, or Mozambique.
So let me get this straight. For whatever reasons the US Military has decided that there is an unneeded risk in allowing its people to be in an area that was just bombed and you think that they should just let their people run around an area they deem unsecure? I mean, seriously, this is ridiculous. I don’t know all the facts of the bombing and I am sure that the authorities are still trying to figure some of it out. Why not stay out of the area until you are pretty sure it will be safe again? It wasn’t like an 8 year ban on London… it wasn’t even a week.
And if they’d banned them from wearing uniform in London then I’d see the point. But a blanket ban and advising the families to steer clear as well? It’s not as if Yanks stand out in London.
Everyone else had accepted that it was safe, last Friday. You’re never going to know that London, or anywhere else, is 100% safe. If the USAF are going to avoid any risk whatsoever, then why not permanently restrict all personnel to base?
They do that as well sometimes. I am still not allowed to travel on a plane in uniform and for a few weeks after 9-11 we couldn’t travel any places off base in uniform (except straight to base and straight home). It is just a combination of protection measures.
Oh, well, you never mentioned that the general concensus was that it was safe and there was no danger. I wonder why the military doesn’t just base its intelligence on what everyone else is doing. :rolleyes: Of course, nothing will ever be 100% safe, but why would you tempt fate? Let me put it another way. They can control their people like a mom can control her child. Do you think that a mom would advise their child to hang around an area that was bombed if they didn’t have to? Wouldn’t they tell their child to stay away until they deemed everything all clear?
Good analogy, because it shows the ridiculousness of the military’s decision. Since Friday, London was back to normal - children, mothers, families and all.
What a silly non-argument.
I can’t believe that you really mean that.
Yes I do. The bombs had exploded, the damage had been done - there was no evidence whatsoever of a further imminent threat. The next attack will as likely be on US soil, or Australian or Italian or anywhere else.
I still have no idea why you seem to think that just because other people started to go back to normal that there was no elevated threat to the US military? This whole idea of pretend the terrorists never bombed us is stupid. The fact of the matter is that London was bombed on July 7. Nothing will change the fact that if a place is bombed it is stupid to think that it instantly goes back to normal after 24 hours. The USAF has a responsibility to its personnel to keep them safe (or as safe as possible) and keeping them away from an area that was just the site of a terrorist attack is one way they keep them safe. The mom analogy wasn’t posed as anything except to show you the level of control the USAF has over it’s people and that if they deem a threat they will keep their people away from it.
Do you have any evidence that there was an elevated threat to the military, that lasted until this morning?
Actually, it pretty much did go back to normal, at least after 48 hours. It’s also stupid to think that a place is inherently dangerous for a few days after an attack, and then goes back to normal.