How do you feel about todays Terror Threat
polycounter lvl 18
Today threat we are reminded about how easy it would of been to place liquid explosives on an aircraft. Would you still fly given the increased risk? are you worried about an attack?
Replies
Would it prevent me from getting on a plane? No, that'd be ridiculous, fearing that is like fearing a gas attack in a mall, or getting hit by a bus when crossing a street. A great many things CAN happen, but you shouldn't be constantly fearful of those teeny tiny possibilities.
Then again, if I see SNAKES ON A PLANE, I might rethink any travel plans involving getting on a plane
I dont see NOT flying as an option. What am I meant to do? Call up my brother and say 'hey mate, I cant be best man at your wedding 'cos Im a big scaredy cat'?
It totally pisses me off that the alleged perpetrators live in leafy English suburban places like Buckinghamshire, and probably have British passports.
It also totally pisses me off that Bush has to chime in with his obligatory 'See, see! I told you so!'.
here's the official list of items.
http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/threat-change.shtm
I dont watch the news anymore not atfer watching the news for the year after 9-11 and seeing how much fear mongering theyr were doing insted of reporting. When all news has become is ambulence chasers and fear reports then whats the point of watching? I dont care whos fucking who in holywood or how someass was killed in a car crash, and i really dont care if bush thinks were all going to die from some teroists.
Not to mention that living in fear of the what if's isn't living.
[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't agree more with you.
also
LIQUIDS ON A PLANE!!!!
With all the shit this moron of a president has started we should all get used to the fact we might die in a terror attack. The people always pay the price for their goverments actions. But i am also not prepared to give up any of my freedoms for a little security,because if these guys really want to take our freedoms away like Bush and Co. say isnt it stupid to take it away from ourselves first?
I love how Bush is trying to play center stage, like this could some how pull him out of the hole with International community or justify his actions.
Like Daz I am going to be flying in and out of Heathrow in another week. A not-insignificant part of me is grateful that the British government found the psychos and that the American one is stepping up security on incoming flights.
WE COULD BE ATTACKED ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME
Please save us Mr President... take away my freedoms, watch me everywhere I go, please control what I'm allowed to say and do, even in the privacy of my own home. Only then will I truly be safe from the invisible terrorists hiding everywhere.
EVERYONE PANIC
WE COULD BE ATTACKED ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME
Please save us Mr President... take away my freedoms, watch me everywhere I go, please control what I'm allowed to say and do, even in the privacy of my own home. Only then will I truly be safe from the invisible terrorists hiding everywhere.
[/ QUOTE ]
No offense intended, but I think this is a bit of a close-minded, naive viewpoint. When increased counter-terrorism measures are proven to have worked (like today) I don't think you can condemn them as a whole so easily.
Don't worry - I'm the last who would defend any of the Bush administration's choices. I just think extremist stances on either end of the spectrum are worth avoiding.
Always question the actions (and motives) of those in charge, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
The best thing we could do to not be a target is to stop fucking with people. No one vote us the world wide police, infact we have one, its called NATO and we just left them. So what does that make us?
When you hear someone screaming in the house down the block (another country) do you run home grab your gun (militarty) and bust down the door to help (invade)? No you call the police(NATO) and you let them deal with it. Why cant we?
With all the shit this moron of a president has started we should all get used to the fact we might die in a terror attack
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh please, could your statement be any more blind?
Between the time he first started office and 9/11, Bush didn't do a damn thing to provoke an attack of any kind. You want to point fingers, point them at Bush senior or Clinton.
They both pissed off the mideast.
Not saying that Bush has done a good job since then, but he certainly didn't start this whole debacle.
As far as this latest terror scare, it's utter crap. Forcing us to sit there like cattle for hours with nothing to do, is more like prison than flying.
I don't think these devices would be dangerous enough to completely destroy a plane, though. Damage for sure, but they just wouldn't be large enough to destroy. Perhaps their aim would be to get into the cockpit, or blow up a few passengers.
That said, the 9/11 anniversary is one month away. In the five years since, I can't think of a single successful terrorist attack that involved a major airline. Either the bad guys aren't trying so hard anymore (which I think is unlikely) or the airline anti-terror protocols are having some positive effect. I mean, let's not forget that these guys were caught, yeah? It's quite probably safer to fly now than in recent months, what with this kind of news event heightening awareness.
liquids dumped into trashcans
The best thing we could do to not be a target is to stop fucking with people. No one vote us the world wide police, infact we have one, its called NATO and we just left them. So what does that make us?
[/ QUOTE ]
North Atlantic Treaty Organization is world police? You perhaps mean the UN (United Nations), who are an utterly inept world police?
Anyways, I've no opinions on this yet. Too early to get worked up, I'll wait till I know more.
Though Bush is still a complete and utter failure as a human being and a president, and none of this changes that.
[Also, there's a lot about the 9/11 stuff that we don't know, so I wouldn't go into that. Watch loose change if you haven't.]
IRA
They were a real, present and *active* danger in the British Isles during their time, blowing up gawd knows how many shopping centres and people as a result of their 'fight'..... and yet we just got on with things.
They were "an enemy you can't see" to misquote the tirade our current boneheaded politicians spout, and yet their constant activity never really batted an eyelid, it was even a battle cry of sorts in London "never let the bastards get you down".
Can somebody please explain to me what the difference is - aside from colour of their skin and how they blow things up... a bomb is a bomb regardless as to how it's placed, and a 'terrorist' is a 'terrorist' regardless as to their political/religious leanings.
What's the different?
Bush is an extremist. So what we have is one extremist vs another extremist, only we get a world wide rep for his views.
The best thing we could do to not be a target is to stop fucking with people. No one vote us the world wide police, infact we have one, its called NATO and we just left them. So what does that make us?
When you hear someone screaming in the house down the block (another country) do you run home grab your gun (militarty) and bust down the door to help (invade)? No you call the police(NATO) and you let them deal with it. Why cant we?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a limited point of view. 9/11 happened less than eight months into Bush Jr's administration. Were the terrorists provoked by Clinton? The 1993 WTC bombing happened all of one month into Clinton's administration. Were the terrorists provoked by Bush Sr? By Reagan? How far back do you cast the blame on America?
The cause-and-effect on this cycle of events has persisted for decades - it's no coincidence that the fall of the Shah of Iran and the Iranian Revolution happened to include an American hostage crisis and denunciations of the US as the 'Great Satan'. That wasn't last year, it was 1979. Surely no one is going to say that Jimmy Carter's foreign policy provoked aggression, right?
The reasons are many and varied, but in many ways the struggle is one of global haves and have-nots. A belligerent American foregin policy begets violence, but so does a passive one. America is a target because it is an icon of wealth and power independent of where her troops are fighting.
To really illustrate that point, think about America's great landmarks, the icons that mean something to Americans. I think of the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, the White House and Capitol Building, Mount Rushmore, maybe a few other places. Where did the terrorists strike twice? The World Trade Cetnter - a landmark that most Americans could hardly have cared less about, no symbol of Americana but an icon of money and capitalism. I believe that's why America is really hated, for what she has rather than what she does.
Yes the UN is the world police and yes they have problems but so do the police in america. We try and work things out and make it better we dont go all vigilante on the world.
Kat, by your thinking then the armed forces are terroists as they use bombs on people.
Sorry man, but the agression to the US stems from far, far more than it's position in the world. Though that does of course have something to do with it I'm sure.
Kat, by your thinking then the armed forces are terroists as they use bombs on people.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're just splitting hairs now, TGZ
and just another note, not to bring religion into this as a topic for discussion, but it has said in the bible since it was written that the middle east will know no peace. interesting...
...Kat, by your thinking then the armed forces are terroists as they use bombs on people.
[/ QUOTE ]No, I'm (we're) talking about this in the context of *terrorists* as we understand the general definition to mean (what an army does at the bequest of it's government is another topic).
I'm actually asking a genuine question, what is the difference between what we were basically told about the IRA as a terrorist organisation and the 'new threat' of so called Islamic terrorists?
Why does one make people come out in a cold sweat (Islamics) whereas the other had people sticking two fingers up (IRA)?.
Yes its true, we are a race of creatures who live to see only to their own greed. We have never known a day with out the killing of one person by another. No mater where we go we will always be there so war, death, and famine will always be with us.
Hopefully the police/intelligence services caught the entirety of the operation, and things will go back to normal by next week.
Islamic terrorist attempt to get to the most populated area and blow themselves up with sharpnel laden explosives to maximize casualties.
the IRA were making political statements (like in V for Vendetta) while the Islamic terroists pretty much want to destroy the Western world.
i could be very mistaken though.
*edit
Seconds from Disaster on National Geographinc Channel just started. they mention the IRA killed 400 cilivians in 20 years of attacks (up to the incident depicted in the show). while an Arabic terrorist attack shortly before the disaster in the show blew up a 747 and killed 200 people on board.
Maybe life hasnt been super rough for me, but I can assure you, no matter how bad it got, I wouldnt voluntarily strap any explosive onto me for any cause.
The world is pretty uber fucked up. And unfortunately, I don't think it will ever get better, before it gets much much worse.
The more intense the terroris attacks or efforts are, the more liberties we lose. Which I can only imagine would bring on a revolution if it were to happen. But maybe I've been watching too many movies.
Well, whilst I really dont get TGZ's comment, I'm not quite sure why you're bringing up the IRA as a point of comparion either kat. You keep asking what's the difference but why? They're all terrorists by definition of course (although I think that the IRA would have stopped short of taking down an airliner). One reason that Islamic fundamentalists might provoke more fear than an outfit like the IRA though, is of course their apparent willingness to die for their cause. You can do an awful lot more damage in a situation If you dont need to get out alive as witnessed on 9/11.
[/ QUOTE ]I brought it up as an attempt to understand why we're reacting one way to the 'old' threat, and another way to the 'new' threat.
From a civilian point of view both blew people up to further their causes (which is a frightening reality regardless as to the motivation behind the acts) without concern as to who they effected; they were equally indiscriminate, in many respects.
But beyond that is there anything truely distinctive about their methods that would actually cause genuine 'fear' in the population at large?
Vermilion, as nice as your view would be, it just doesn't add up.
[/ QUOTE ]
What is nice about my world view?
[ QUOTE ]
There are other countries in the world with as much wealth as the US (or close to), other countries with better living conditions. These countries are no ones enemies. (Look at Canada and Australia for instance).
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say living conditions, I said wealth and power.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry man, but the agression to the US stems from far, far more than it's position in the world. Though that does of course have something to do with it I'm sure.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure it has something to do with it, too - moreso than any foreign policy in and of itself. As a talking point, consider that America has had seven presidents since Vietnam. What has been a more constant factor in that 30 years: America's power or America's foreign policy?
It's easy to shelve this stuff into obvious factors like support for Israel or meddling with Iranian politics, but America's first real armed incursion into the Middle East didn't happen until 1991. If the reason Islamic fundmanentalists hate America is because of America's "World Police" approach (as others suggested in this thread), why did they hate America even before the police showed up?
All that said, I think trying to divine the motives of people hellbent (hah!) on martyrdom through violence is not a winning play. Radical Muslims hate their so-called enemies for ideologicial reasons, not practical ones.
The world is pretty uber fucked up. And unfortunately, I don't think it will ever get better, before it gets much much worse.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, this is deffinatly something I agree with. Though it might not get much, much worse over time. I'd expect that things will start to change when someone does something really stupid, and change is forced. Or whe robots start taking over the world and turning us into batteries of course.
And vermilion, I do see your point. And agree with you for the most part, whoever is on top always takes the most flak. It goes for everything from countries, to corporations (ie: Microsoft hate), to jealousy of the top person in a class. I do however think that there is more to it though. Things from Hiroshima to the general view in much of the world that American's are arrogant.
Does that count ruz?
I cant talk about politics with my parents now in public for fear that someone might report us as being anti american. I dont feel thatway my parents do, but it means lots of quite conversations about hows work insted of what were thinking about.
Does that count ruz?
[/ QUOTE ]
Who would report you and who would they report you to?
so tell me in what ways have you PERSONALLY been affected by these laws? How has it changed your life in general and your day to day life?
[/ QUOTE ]
A very good point... definitely important to keep in mind when being critical about the government... but also definitely not a reason to stop being skeptical.
(bitching is not always genuine skepticism, though)
You know as someone from the UK I'm constantly surprised at how short peoples memories are. One word (or rather acronym)
IRA
They were a real, present and *active* danger in the British Isles during their time, blowing up gawd knows how many shopping centres and people as a result of their 'fight'..... and yet we just got on with things.
They were "an enemy you can't see" to misquote the tirade our current boneheaded politicians spout, and yet their constant activity never really batted an eyelid, it was even a battle cry of sorts in London "never let the bastards get you down".
Can somebody please explain to me what the difference is - aside from colour of their skin and how they blow things up... a bomb is a bomb regardless as to how it's placed, and a 'terrorist' is a 'terrorist' regardless as to their political/religious leanings.
What's the different?
[/ QUOTE ]
My personal opinion, and not a damn soul is going to change this, is the fact that it doesn't involve the US. If it doesn't affect the US, it isn't news. I really believe that. I really hate Blair's fucking love for Bush and the US. I'd much prefer us to take a united front with the rest of Europe rather than "some" country.
On-Topic: This hasn't affected me or any of my family, that I'm aware of. My family DO however go to Turkey (isn't that full of Islamics?!) in September, as well as my best mate (oddly enough they go to the same place IN turkey for the same period).
The thing is more down-south (yay) not up-here where it all went down before (Actually in Beeston, Leeds
wow, it doesnt take long to turn it into a Bush is a FUCKTARD thread does it? let me ask you this.....you guys keep bitching and moaning about how your personal freedoms are gone now due to the Anti-Terrorist laws that are in effect, so tell me in what ways have you PERSONALLY been affected by these laws? How has it changed your life in general and your day to day life?
[/ QUOTE ]
mostly just annoying stuff, like how the government is wasting tax dollars to crack down on the sale of graduated cylinders and chemistry sets. I could still make a bomb in my garage pretty easily.
[ QUOTE ]
I cant talk about politics with my parents now in public for fear that someone might report us as being anti american. I dont feel thatway my parents do, but it means lots of quite conversations about hows work insted of what were thinking about.
Does that count ruz?
[/ QUOTE ]
Who would report you and who would they report you to?
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he means that he has some conservative friends who are mean to him when he badmouths Bush?
Either that or his "talking about politics" involves planning terrorist attacks against the current administration with his parents. I can see someone reporting him if he were doing that... But hey, thats how some people talk politics. "Die Bush Die, etc..."
Nice to live in a world where bottled water and breast milk is now dangerous.
Clothing is next to go...it's flammable, you know.
"The United States CPSC has initiated criminal legal action against us and other chemical suppliers. In short, the CPSC would like to ban the public from all access to chemicals.
This would mean an end to Chemistry as a hobby, as well as all personal research
and other endeavors involving chemicals of any sort."
http://www.unitednuclear.com/legalaction.htm
The cause-and-effect on this cycle of events has persisted for decades - it's no coincidence that the fall of the Shah of Iran and the Iranian Revolution happened to include an American hostage crisis and denunciations of the US as the 'Great Satan'. That wasn't last year, it was 1979. Surely no one is going to say that Jimmy Carter's foreign policy provoked aggression, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
You have to go back a bit further, to the early '50s... Mohammed Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran, was going to nationalize the Iranian oil supply (this would've been a huge blow to the British economy, which depended on Iranian oil). The British convinced President Eisenhower that Mossadegh needed to be removed from power, so the US and Britain led a coup to overthrow him and return the Shah to power. You have to remember that the US and Britain were responsible for this regime change, and the oppressive Shah became deeply hated and was seen as a puppet for Western governments. This of course caused a great deal of resentment toward the US among the Iranian people, which made it possible for the strongly anti-American Ayatollah Khomeini to lead a revolution against the Shah.
To help defeat the Ayatollah, the US propped up Saddam Hussein in Iraq, because he was anti-Iranian. Not only did we make a puppet out of him, but when he started to lose the war against Iran, we supplied his army with intelligence and weapons.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the US became worried that he could possibly invade Saudi Arabia (which happens to have the world's largest oil reserves), so we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia. This caused Osama bin Laden to speak out against the Saudi government, for using Americans to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq. We didn't want to lose our position with the Saudi government, so we decided to demonize our previous ally (Saddam), and started a war against Iraq (which happens to have the second largest oil reserves in the world).
If you think everything that's going on in the Middle East is because "they hate our freedom," or "haves and have-nots," then you're really burying your head in the sand and not paying attention.
im sick of the ups and downs, back and forth two faced war mongering sensationalist political circus media and everyone bitching about everyone elses' lack of intelligence/forethought/policies who did what's and whens oil and blood soaked revenges and tirades