New Terrorist Threat, political or real?

SoonForgotten2

dunkman1974 wrote:

i'm lost as to why some on here think its for political gain to make up bomb threats and terror threats of this magnitude... it's the terror threat hanging over us that is swaying my decision to vote for Blair again... i dont think if we were in Iraq or Afghanistan that we would be a target for these religious retards.... so what political gain do they actually achieve by making people decide NOT to vote for them in the future

Because this exact kind of shit HAS worked for Bush in the past. They thrive on this. As for Blair, he's a lame duck trying to hold on as long as possible- successfully thwarting a terrorist plot, in theory, should make him look good. Which he needs since there's a new reason to call for his head about every other week. For him, it maybe delays the inevitable- but for Bush and co it rounds up the sheep, ready to be guided into the next war or the next round of kissing their liberties goodbye.

ladygooddiva

belfast1 wrote:

but it is about america and world events isnt it?

yes but the whole world is not only america

ladygooddiva

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

How convenient for you.

and why?

dunkman

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

Because this exact kind of shit HAS worked for Bush in the past. They thrive on this. As for Blair, he's a lame duck trying to hold on as long as possible- successfully thwarting a terrorist plot, in theory, should make him look good. Which he needs since there's a new reason to call for his head about every other week. For him, it maybe delays the inevitable- but for Bush and co it rounds up the sheep, ready to be guided into the next war or the next round of kissing their liberties goodbye.

in theory it should make him look good... but in reality the media is beginning to question whether we would have been a target had we not been a lapdog in this war of terror...


*this part not aimed at SoonForgotten. just me ranting *
i dont know, but it makes me just want to get the fuck out of those countries and leave them to rot... i couldnt give a fuck about them anymore... let them blow each other up...

and people going on about giving up "freedoms"... i mean.. if the government wants to track my passport, watch me on CCTV.. listen to my phone.... big fucking deal.. all they;ll see is that i do fuck all wrong, i talk a lot of shit and i go a crappy holiday to Spain every year.... if people arent breaking the law then whats the big deal about it all.... fucking freedoms... we've never been totally free since the days of cavemen for fucks sake...

belfast1

'And in all the madness. Thought becomes numb and naive.
So much to talk about there's. Nothing for to say.'

EV 06

bye now

SoonForgotten2

ladygooddiva wrote:

and why?

You want to casually pass off a perfect example of why governments cannot be trusted when it comes to such events- there can always be an underlying motivation for things not being what they seem. With Bush and Blair these are so transparent it hurts, but many people just decide to look the other way when it comes to that. Saying Pearl Harbour was different falls into that category of naive thinking.

sliverstain

belfast1 wrote:

some of you dumbass conspiracy theorists would have probably thought pearl harbour was made up just so the US could have a go at the Japs

Wow, there's just so much wrong with in this so short sentence.

PEarl Harbour could have been avoided. THe US insulted, repeatedly, the Japanese ambassador, and broke off all diplomatic ties. Yes, Pearl Harbour happened, but yes, half the administration wanted it to happen, wanted it to silence the isolationist movement and move America into war. There's more to it, but you really need to look things up for yourself.

Please research your history before spouting shit, sir.

ladygooddiva

SoonForgotten2 wrote:

You want to casually pass off a perfect example of why governments cannot be trusted when it comes to such events- there can always be an underlying motivation for things not being what they seem. With Bush and Blair these are so transparent it hurts, but many people just decide to look the other way when it comes to that. Saying Pearl Harbour was different falls into that category of naive thinking.

in my view we for now have nothing to do with it specially not us europeans ...as for myself i´ve my own countrys sh...history that i won´t forget...
and i don´t trust the american goverment specially not this one ...if we had our old goverment thinks might be somehow diffrent but now we are hanging on US... asses (goverment)...so i wouldn´t wonder if one day the terror comes here ...

SoonForgotten2

dunkman1974 wrote:

in theory it should make him look good... but in reality the media is beginning to question whether we would have been a target had we not been a lapdog in this war of terror...


*this part not aimed at SoonForgotten. just me ranting *
i dont know, but it makes me just want to get the fuck out of those countries and leave them to rot... i couldnt give a fuck about them anymore... let them blow each other up...

and people going on about giving up "freedoms"... i mean.. if the government wants to track my passport, watch me on CCTV.. listen to my phone.... big fucking deal.. all they;ll see is that i do fuck all wrong, i talk a lot of shit and i go a crappy holiday to Spain every year.... if people arent breaking the law then whats the big deal about it all.... fucking freedoms... we've never been totally free since the days of cavemen for fucks sake...

I totally agree that we should stay out of their shit. But that won't happen because that would include Israel and all the oil.

As for the freedoms issue, the thing is that it can and will snowball. You say that all the government will see is that you're not doing anything wrong. That's fine until they change the definition of what is wrong. This you're seeing right before your very eyes with the different laws that have been created under the guise of combatting terror. I think generally, people do not want to live in a police state and want the freedom to live their lives freely- that's where the conflict lies.

Jammin909

The Headlines should be reading "FINALLY! GOVERNMENT DOES THEIR JOB: UNFOILS POTENTIAL ATTACK!"

There is no need to use the phrases like "catastrophic loss of life" and there is no need for the media to be showing pictures of officers/military guard at LAX walking around with automatic weapons.

I am glad they prevented this and I believe the threat was real but this is the next excuse for tightening the grip. "Remember 9/11, dont forget about the attack using more planes from the UK to US"- now do what I tell you and dont think twice, this is what needs to be done!

belfast1

sliverstain wrote:

Wow, there's just so much wrong with in this so short sentence.

PEarl Harbour could have been avoided. THe US insulted, repeatedly, the Japanese ambassador, and broke off all diplomatic ties. Yes, Pearl Harbour happened, but yes, half the administration wanted it to happen, wanted it to silence the isolationist movement and move America into war. There's more to it, but you really need to look things up for yourself.

Please research your history before spouting shit, sir.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha

you funny

sliverstain

dunkman1974 wrote:

and people going on about giving up "freedoms"... i mean.. if the government wants to track my passport, watch me on CCTV.. listen to my phone.... big fucking deal.. all they;ll see is that i do fuck all wrong, i talk a lot of shit and i go a crappy holiday to Spain every year.... if people arent breaking the law then whats the big deal about it all.... fucking freedoms... we've never been totally free since the days of cavemen for fucks sake...

"I feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom."

You may take your freedoms, what freedoms we percieve ourselves to have, lightly, and for granted, and disrespect their power to the individual. Luckily, mate, for our children, and for us, others do not.

Waych me on CCTv etc...umm..Innocent, until proven guilty, no?

How long do you think you can continue to drink your beer, get laid or tooted up on a weekend, have new phones, TVs, shitty but half decently paid job, to listen to the music you want, when you want, to say what you want, when you want, until they, the bastards that took away all the freedoms you took for granted, THAT YOU WILLINGLY SURRENDER, come for their pound of flesh, and drive you to fight a war the causes of which you should have cared for earlier, or into poverty and destitution once they have exhausted this world of all possible profit?

Do you think this is a one sided deal with devil here? For these freedoms you think you have, the freedom to get up and go to fucking work, to blow money on daft mullet and bleached haircuts, on bowling shoes and ripped fucking jeans and tattoos and smokes and SKY tv and football and all that other shit they blind you with, do you not ever think the overseers will want something in return?

This government lied to me once, a big fucking lie, that led us to war and the deaths of thousands.

I will never blindly believe them again. Why will you, chief?

sliverstain

belfast1 wrote:

'And in all the madness. Thought becomes numb and naive.
So much to talk about there's. Nothing for to say.'

EV 06

Tell you to pray while the devil's on their shoulder..

Laying claim to the take our soldiers save
Does not equate and, THE TRUTH'S ALREADY OUT THERE...

ladygooddiva

maybe i am bored allready:

http://www.mi5.gov.uk/

belfast1

sliverstain wrote:

"I feel that it does not behoove slaves to reason about freedom."

You may take your freedoms, what freedoms we percieve ourselves to have, lightly, and for granted, and disrespect their power to the individual. Luckily, mate, for our children, and for us, others do not.

Waych me on CCTv etc...umm..Innocent, until proven guilty, no?

How long do you think you can continue to drink your beer, get laid or tooted up on a weekend, have new phones, TVs, shitty but half decently paid job, to listen to the music you want, when you want, to say what you want, when you want, until they, the bastards that took away all the freedoms you took for granted, THAT YOU WILLINGLY SURRENDER, come for their pound of flesh, and drive you to fight a war the causes of which you should have cared for earlier, or into poverty and destitution once they have exhausted this world of all possible profit?

Do you think this is a one sided deal with devil here? For these freedoms you think you have, the freedom to get up and go to fucking work, to blow money on daft mullet and bleached haircuts, on bowling shoes and ripped fucking jeans and tattoos and smokes and SKY tv and football and all that other shit they blind you with, do you not ever think the overseers will want something in return?

This government lied to me once, a big fucking lie, that led us to war and the deaths of thousands.

I will never blindly believe them again. Why will you, chief?

here, you need to take a chill pill

dunkman

sliverstain wrote:

How long do you think you can continue to drink your beer, get laid or tooted up on a weekend, have new phones, TVs, shitty but half decently paid job, to listen to the music you want, when you want, to say what you want, when you want, until they, the bastards that took away all the freedoms you took for granted, THAT YOU WILLINGLY SURRENDER, come for their pound of flesh, and drive you to fight a war the causes of which you should have cared for earlier, or into poverty and destitution once they have exhausted this world of all possible profit?

Do you think this is a one sided deal with devil here? For these freedoms you think you have, the freedom to get up and go to fucking work, to blow money on daft mullet and bleached haircuts, on bowling shoes and ripped fucking jeans and tattoos and smokes and SKY tv and football and all that other shit they blind you with, do you not ever think the overseers will want something in return?

This government lied to me once, a big fucking lie, that led us to war and the deaths of thousands.

I will never blindly believe them again. Why will you, chief?

right... what 'freedoms' have the UK stripped of its citizens since 9/11... if you can supply me with a list of PASSED governmental decrees that affect my life then i'll start to listen...

your not a soothsayer... you have no crystal ball.. your vision of our future where we live in some facist state with no perceived freedom is just scaremongering... this kind of scaremongering holds no greater kudos or nobility than the one you are saying our government is doing.... just a different side of the coin.... but prosaic hyperbole aside... if the govt starts polices and procedures that directly affect my (and many millions of ordinary citizens) lives.. then i'll start a revolution... but asking me to put my stuff into a plastic bag to go on a flight is hardly enlisting me into some Krakow ghetto where i have to use gold fillings to buy bread

sliverstain

belfast1 wrote:

here, you need to take a chill pill

Hey, im not the one falling for all this terror alert bullshit, scared to death of the big bad black bogeymen with the beards.

I am very chilled, and have great faith in the uncalculabe majority that is my good fellow man. Its the tiny percentage who control the guns, planes, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapone, bombs, missiles, CCTV cameras, the power to watch my bank accounts, to listen to my phone calls, to read my emails, to restrict my freedoms, and to make me pay fucking pay for it, that I'm scared of.

dunkman

sliverstain wrote:

Does not equate and, THE TRUTH'S ALREADY OUT THERE...

Mulder is one great fucking lyricist

ladygooddiva

some of thoose calling theirselves expert said germany can be eyesed of thoose people too (it´s just getting creazy).I don´t belive that ...never bec. i don´t know any reason...

sliverstain

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece


Blair laid bare: the article that may get you arrested

In the guise of fighting terrorism and maintaining public order, Tony Blair's
Government has quietly and systematically taken power from Parliament and the
British people. The author charts a nine-year assault on civil liberties that
reveals the danger of trading freedom for security - and must have Churchill
spinning in his grave

By Henry Porter
Published: 29 June 2006

In the shadow of Winston Churchill's statue opposite the House of Commons, a rather odd ritual has developed on Sunday afternoons. A small group of people - mostly young and dressed outlandishly - hold a tea party on the grass of Parliament Square. A woman looking very much like Mary Poppins passes plates of frosted cakes and cookies, while other members of the party flourish blank placards or, as they did on the afternoon I was there, attempt a game of cricket.

Sometimes the police move in and arrest the picnickers, but on this occasion the officers stood at a distance, presumably consulting on the question of whether this was a demonstration or a non-demonstration. It is all rather silly and yet in Blair's Britain there is a kind of nobility in the amateurishness and
persistence of the gesture. This collection of oddballs, looking for all the
world as if they had stepped out of the Michelangelo Antonioni film Blow-Up, are challenging a new law which says that no one may demonstrate within a kilometre, or a little more than half a mile, of Parliament Square if they have not first acquired written permission from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. This effectively places the entire centre of British government, Whitehall and Trafalgar Square, off-limits to the protesters and marchers who have traditionally brought their grievances to those in power without ever having to ask a policeman's permission.

The non-demo demo, or tea party, is a legalistic response to the law. If
anything is written on the placards, or if someone makes a speech, then he or she is immediately deemed to be in breach of the law and is arrested. The device doesn't always work. After drinking tea in the square, a man named Mark Barrett was recently convicted of demonstrating. Two other protesters, Milan Rai and Maya Evans, were charged after reading out the names of dead Iraqi civilians at the Cenotaph, Britain's national war memorial, in Whitehall, a few hundred yards away.

On that dank spring afternoon I looked up at Churchill and reflected that he
almost certainly would have approved of these people insisting on their right to
demonstrate in front of his beloved Parliament. "If you will not fight for the
right," he once growled, "when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will
not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the
moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a
precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight
when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live
as slaves."

Churchill lived in far more testing times than ours, but he always revered the
ancient tradition of Britain's "unwritten constitution". I imagined him becoming
flesh again and walking purposefully toward Downing Street - without security,
of course - there to address Tony Blair and his aides on their sacred duty as
the guardians of Britain's Parliament and the people's rights.

For Blair, that youthful baby-boomer who came to power nine years ago as the
embodiment of democratic liberalism as well as the new spirit of optimism in
Britain, turns out to have an authoritarian streak that respects neither those
rights nor, it seems, the independence of the elected representatives in
Parliament. And what is remarkable - in fact almost a historic phenomenon - is
the harm his government has done to the unwritten British constitution in those
nine years, without anyone really noticing, without the press objecting or the
public mounting mass protests. At the inception of Cool Britannia, British
democracy became subject to a silent takeover.

Last year - rather late in the day, I must admit - I started to notice trends in
Blair's legislation which seemed to attack individual rights and freedoms, to
favour ministers (politicians appointed by the Prime Minister to run departments
of government) over the scrutiny of Parliament, and to put in place all the
necessary laws for total surveillance of society.
There was nothing else to do but to go back and read the Acts - at least 15 of
them - and to write about them in my weekly column in The Observer. After about
eight weeks, the Prime Minister privately let it be known that he was displeased
at being called authoritarian by me. Very soon I found myself in the odd
position of conducting a formal e-mail exchange with him on the rule of law, I
sitting in my London home with nothing but Google and a stack of legislation,
the Prime Minister in No 10 with all the resources of government at his
disposal. Incidentally, I was assured that he had taken time out of his schedule
so that he himself could compose the thunderous responses calling for action
against terrorism, crime, and antisocial behaviour.