Terrorists Plot Foiled In The Uk

[Leighton]

OK, so Dan wants the banishmnt of water and jumpers. I'm not surprised.



Why are you so scared, Dan? Try and answer that question without an "if", "but" or "might" and put together a reality based arguement for the stance that would convince me of your opinion.

[Fadingtoblack]

Dude who's post are you actually replying to?

This is what I mean by over dramatising. I'm NOT advocating banishing water from flights. I'm just trying to explain why we must endure these extra security checks to prevent a possible attack.

If we sit back and do nothing - that's when the Terrorists will win, because they have learnt that they can walk all over us with out us putting up the slighest show of resistance.

Also, the reason I use 'ifs' and 'mights', is because I'm also thinking about what could happen in future, not just focusing on what has happened already.


And Dan, I appreciate the support, but you don't need to resort to name calling to get your point across. We don't need this to turn into another Danallica vs Leighton pissing contest, we've been doing good avoiding those for a while now!

[MetDream]

And Dan, I appreciate the support, but you don't need to resort to name calling to get your point across. We don't need this to turn into another Danallica vs Leighton pissing contest, we've been doing good avoiding those for a while now!

The exact thought I was going to post after I did a little editing above. Keep it civil and on topic without personal attacks please. Thanks.

[MetDream]

Is it possible to agree with both sides being presented here? I totally agree that the government uses things like this to further encroach on our freedoms. Scared people are easier to control. At the same time, the "reaction" to the "threat" ie the removal of liquids in reaction to liquid bomb plot seems logical. If it is indeed true that the threat was trumped up then we are indeed allowing our own government to tighten the screws and strip away our freedoms.

However on a third side we pampered Americans are so spoiled that we are easy targets. If we had as security as strict as some other countries, we wouldn't have these types of attacks in the first place.

[Leighton]

I've asked Dan serious questions a number of times and he's shown the way he likes to counter them. He's only gone into a "pro-active" mode this time.

I flew from Newcastle to Melbourne last Saturday and because Newcastle only has the one terminal, it uses it to service both domestic and international flights. So I was scanned for my toiletries which was in my carry-on luggage because they don't know at the access to the gates whether you're going overseas or not. Since there was hardly anyone around I struck up a conversation with the security gaurd doing it an he basically told me it wasn't just a waste of my time, but of his.

The machines have been around for years and done their job fine, but now they have to scan each individual item just for our peace of mind. That's the waste of time. You're right, Metdream about the logical-ness of the measures, but I think that's the ploy. It seems authorities are simply over-stipulating threats just to see what they can get away with in restricting us. Why would they do that? Safety is the excuse, but common sense has to be thrown into the mix somewhere if that was serious. Suspicious looking jumpers are targeted?? Put those guys (and the bloke I talked to in Newcastle) to better use for christ's sake. I'd rather that guy gaurd Williamtown's RAAF base so no would be terrorists steal some of their munitions.

I should also mention that on return yesterday there were none of those scanners for the domestic flights. Heathrow also has the scanners I've noticed today, so I'm not sure if they would've cleared that hurdle anyway.

Here's a good article on it, not sure if it's the same one I got checked with though.

http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article ... 68,00.html

[superman321]

This thing is starting to turn quite wierd. It seems some of the guys didn't even have passports - which is slightly odd. It does look as if these arrests were at best very rushed - probably prior to having enough good evidence.

What gets to me about all this is that authorities new about the possibility of a liquid bomb way back in 1995 and what did they do - jack shit. Did they invest in all these new technologies now being worked on - no. They were slack as all hell and what happens because of it, travellers now have to take a lot longer to get to their gate and on their flight. If things had actually been done back in the mid nineties, airports would have this technology and we wouldn't be forced to give up our water and jumpers.

[Danallica]

The arrests were rushed because the US wanted them done asap, the Brits wanted to wait for more evidence, they should have not listened to the US.

Anyhow, Would you be happy to give up taking water on a flight (which you can buy on there) or get blown up? I think I know what my choice would be

To some, who shall remain nameless, all this is just another consipracy brought on upon by our governments to get rid of our freedoms, scare people so they will vote for them in the next election. That stupid logic is getting old fast, either come up with a new conspiracy theory or accept the facts that it is neccassary for certain civil liberties to be stretched in order to prevent future attacks, we have already seen several attacks foiled at the expense of some, and I emphasise some, of our civil liberties. If governments had not intervened no doubt there would have been more deaths. But thats ok because we still maintain our civil liberties

[superman321]

What I would prefer was that governments had trully been proactive, and when the idea (and original plots) for liquid explosives on planes had first been discovered in 1995 they had then developed the technology, which is only being pursued now, that would mean it wouldn't matter if people carried liquid since it cans them. That is what I would have prefered. And lets be honest, civil liberties are either there or they aren't - you can't stretch them. We either have them or we don't.

[Leighton]

Anyhow, Would you be happy to give up taking water on a flight (which you can buy on there) or get blown up? I think I know what my choice would be

You know there's always the option of allowing people to have their water and still not have their flight blown up. How many planes have been brought down using this technique you've only given a shit about the last week?

Shit all. Now it seems this current threat wasn't as bad as we were made out to believe afterall.

The rest of your rhetoric has been snipped for obvious reasons. "stretching civil liberties" The moment your civil liberty is touched then you've lost it. Take a moment to think about the actual meaning of 'liberty'.

EDIT: and that's a great post, Supes. That would've been the true definition of pro-active. I think it's convienient of people to attach the "pro-active" tag after the fact these days like it was planned that way all along.

[Fadingtoblack]

How many planes have been brought down using this technique you've only given a shit about the last week?

How many planes were flown into major US buildings before September 11? But now we know it's possible, since then we give a shit about it, shouldn't we try and stop it from happening again?

And Supes did make a good post. And that would have been a nice preventative measure. However hindsight being what it is, and governments being cheap as they are, it just never happened grr


However beefing security now is a preventative action to guard against future attempts using this method, I don't think anyone's back dating it to past attempts - is that what you meant?

[edited for spelling]