The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I've been, since Saturday last week, unaware of the news - burrowed away in a studio with no concerns other than click-tracks, vodka tonics, compressors/gaters, guide vocals, beating my bass player at FIFA World Cup and reading dusty copies of More magazine left lying around upstairs.
So I return and catch up on news and find myself laughing quietly and wondering just when it was that I went to sleep and woke up in Brazil (the movie, not 3rd world country).
Let me just make sure I haven't missed anything here:
France & Germany refuse to support the impending war, coinciding with a rising groundswell of anti-war feeling amongst the UK public.
Blunkett announces a "Sept 11th level of threat" and places tanks at Heathrow along with soldiers.
US tells it's citizens to stock up on survival-type items.
Public becomes skittish and panicky.
Blunkett (almost) explains why he decided to put military forces at airports.
Public becomes bored with seeing tanks and soldiers at airports, several newspapers start to question the actual effectiveness of doing this:
Tanks cannot board planes to arrest terrorists and are deemed useless at taking down a lone rocket-launcher dude etc etc.
Suddenly, 3hrs after Blunkett's Commons appearance to quell voices of "Why?" concerning military presence, a man is arrested with a live hand grenade and 2 others at Heathrow.
This is 2 days before the largest anti-war protest likely to be seen in the history of this country, coinciding with a global anti-war protest day.
Now, me being me is asking why now? Why, a mere day after tanks etc appear does a bloke decide to arrive with a hand grenade - pushing the anti-war protest out of the news.
Have you seen *any* serious coverage or discussion about this protest since yesterday? It's all about hand grenades and tanks and bombs and rocket launchers.
If one were so inclined, it could be suggested that this recent flurry of "terrorist" activity (from Colombia, where a US Spy Plane has crashed yesterday) is a perfect opportunity to bury anti-war protest news and to keep people panicked and afraid for their lives.
In turn making it easier to convince on-the-fence people about bombing Baghdad because, hey, hand grenades and rocket launchers and stuff.
Tanks on the streets? Armed police at Stansted Airport searching cars?
"Yes but Sept 11th level of threat".
Really? Ok that is a bad thing then, no question. But what I am questioning is why now? Why in the run-up to the UN Weapons Inspectors report and tomorrow's demo in Hyde Park and in the same week France and Germany insist they comply with International Law and not begin arbitrary bombing campaigns on the basis of "He might do something bad if he continues though"
Last time I checked, Al Queda were responsible for Sept 11th, not Iraq.
And they didn't use WOMD, they used box-cutters.
I get the odd feeling that something else will be narrowly averted today as well, and we'll be told within the hour that the culprit is a 37yr old man from Venuzuala.
If we had that level of intelligence and knowledge so soon after Sept 11th, maybe we could have actually apprehended those responsible instead of pursuing an easier-to-find enemy?
So I return and catch up on news and find myself laughing quietly and wondering just when it was that I went to sleep and woke up in Brazil (the movie, not 3rd world country).
Let me just make sure I haven't missed anything here:
France & Germany refuse to support the impending war, coinciding with a rising groundswell of anti-war feeling amongst the UK public.
Blunkett announces a "Sept 11th level of threat" and places tanks at Heathrow along with soldiers.
US tells it's citizens to stock up on survival-type items.
Public becomes skittish and panicky.
Blunkett (almost) explains why he decided to put military forces at airports.
Public becomes bored with seeing tanks and soldiers at airports, several newspapers start to question the actual effectiveness of doing this:
Tanks cannot board planes to arrest terrorists and are deemed useless at taking down a lone rocket-launcher dude etc etc.
Suddenly, 3hrs after Blunkett's Commons appearance to quell voices of "Why?" concerning military presence, a man is arrested with a live hand grenade and 2 others at Heathrow.
This is 2 days before the largest anti-war protest likely to be seen in the history of this country, coinciding with a global anti-war protest day.
Now, me being me is asking why now? Why, a mere day after tanks etc appear does a bloke decide to arrive with a hand grenade - pushing the anti-war protest out of the news.
Have you seen *any* serious coverage or discussion about this protest since yesterday? It's all about hand grenades and tanks and bombs and rocket launchers.
If one were so inclined, it could be suggested that this recent flurry of "terrorist" activity (from Colombia, where a US Spy Plane has crashed yesterday) is a perfect opportunity to bury anti-war protest news and to keep people panicked and afraid for their lives.
In turn making it easier to convince on-the-fence people about bombing Baghdad because, hey, hand grenades and rocket launchers and stuff.
Tanks on the streets? Armed police at Stansted Airport searching cars?
"Yes but Sept 11th level of threat".
Really? Ok that is a bad thing then, no question. But what I am questioning is why now? Why in the run-up to the UN Weapons Inspectors report and tomorrow's demo in Hyde Park and in the same week France and Germany insist they comply with International Law and not begin arbitrary bombing campaigns on the basis of "He might do something bad if he continues though"
Last time I checked, Al Queda were responsible for Sept 11th, not Iraq.
And they didn't use WOMD, they used box-cutters.
I get the odd feeling that something else will be narrowly averted today as well, and we'll be told within the hour that the culprit is a 37yr old man from Venuzuala.
If we had that level of intelligence and knowledge so soon after Sept 11th, maybe we could have actually apprehended those responsible instead of pursuing an easier-to-find enemy?
Page:
You commie pinko liberal!
*waves fist angrily*
I am stupid and easily confuse anti-war with pro-Hussein. You faaaaaaaaaaargin hippy!
*waves fist angrily*
I am stupid and easily confuse anti-war with pro-Hussein. You faaaaaaaaaaargin hippy!
I remember Rorke's Drift, damn Zulus. Why don't we play it safe and cut down all the trees in our country, that way no one will be able to make bows, arrows or spears and destroy our nation from within.
And what about the Romans, if they reappear we're all doomed, kill all tortoises to stop them remembering old battle tactics, I say.
And what about the Romans, if they reappear we're all doomed, kill all tortoises to stop them remembering old battle tactics, I say.
I also think it's a shame that we weren't this vigilant against "terrorism" when the IRA were conducting mainland bombing campaigns in London.
As far as I'm aware, the IRA are responsible for more deaths in the UK with terrorist-tactics than...er...Colombia? (man with grenade), Algiers (Ricin originators) or whichever Straw Dog is the bad-man this week.
As far as I'm aware, the IRA are responsible for more deaths in the UK with terrorist-tactics than...er...Colombia? (man with grenade), Algiers (Ricin originators) or whichever Straw Dog is the bad-man this week.
I've been, since Saturday last week, unaware of the news - burrowed away in a studio with no concerns other than click-tracks, vodka tonics, compressors/gaters, guide vocals, beating my bass player at FIFA World Cup and reading dusty copies of More magazine left lying around upstairs.
So I return and catch up on news and find myself laughing quietly and wondering just when it was that I went to sleep and woke up in Brazil (the movie, not 3rd world country).
Let me just make sure I haven't missed anything here:
France & Germany refuse to support the impending war, coinciding with a rising groundswell of anti-war feeling amongst the UK public.
Blunkett announces a "Sept 11th level of threat" and places tanks at Heathrow along with soldiers.
US tells it's citizens to stock up on survival-type items.
Public becomes skittish and panicky.
Blunkett (almost) explains why he decided to put military forces at airports.
Public becomes bored with seeing tanks and soldiers at airports, several newspapers start to question the actual effectiveness of doing this:
Tanks cannot board planes to arrest terrorists and are deemed useless at taking down a lone rocket-launcher dude etc etc.
Suddenly, 3hrs after Blunkett's Commons appearance to quell voices of "Why?" concerning military presence, a man is arrested with a live hand grenade and 2 others at Heathrow.
This is 2 days before the largest anti-war protest likely to be seen in the history of this country, coinciding with a global anti-war protest day.
Now, me being me is asking why now? Why, a mere day after tanks etc appear does a bloke decide to arrive with a hand grenade - pushing the anti-war protest out of the news.
Have you seen *any* serious coverage or discussion about this protest since yesterday? It's all about hand grenades and tanks and bombs and rocket launchers.
If one were so inclined, it could be suggested that this recent flurry of "terrorist" activity (from Colombia, where a US Spy Plane has crashed yesterday) is a perfect opportunity to bury anti-war protest news and to keep people panicked and afraid for their lives.
In turn making it easier to convince on-the-fence people about bombing Baghdad because, hey, hand grenades and rocket launchers and stuff.
Tanks on the streets? Armed police at Stansted Airport searching cars?
"Yes but Sept 11th level of threat".
Really? Ok that is a bad thing then, no question. But what I am questioning is why now? Why in the run-up to the UN Weapons Inspectors report and tomorrow's demo in Hyde Park and in the same week France and Germany insist they comply with International Law and not begin arbitrary bombing campaigns on the basis of "He might do something bad if he continues though"
Last time I checked, Al Queda were responsible for Sept 11th, not Iraq.
And they didn't use WOMD, they used box-cutters.
I get the odd feeling that something else will be narrowly averted today as well, and we'll be told within the hour that the culprit is a 37yr old man from Venuzuala.
If we had that level of intelligence and knowledge so soon after Sept 11th, maybe we could have actually apprehended those responsible instead of pursuing an easier-to-find enemy?
So I return and catch up on news and find myself laughing quietly and wondering just when it was that I went to sleep and woke up in Brazil (the movie, not 3rd world country).
Let me just make sure I haven't missed anything here:
France & Germany refuse to support the impending war, coinciding with a rising groundswell of anti-war feeling amongst the UK public.
Blunkett announces a "Sept 11th level of threat" and places tanks at Heathrow along with soldiers.
US tells it's citizens to stock up on survival-type items.
Public becomes skittish and panicky.
Blunkett (almost) explains why he decided to put military forces at airports.
Public becomes bored with seeing tanks and soldiers at airports, several newspapers start to question the actual effectiveness of doing this:
Tanks cannot board planes to arrest terrorists and are deemed useless at taking down a lone rocket-launcher dude etc etc.
Suddenly, 3hrs after Blunkett's Commons appearance to quell voices of "Why?" concerning military presence, a man is arrested with a live hand grenade and 2 others at Heathrow.
This is 2 days before the largest anti-war protest likely to be seen in the history of this country, coinciding with a global anti-war protest day.
Now, me being me is asking why now? Why, a mere day after tanks etc appear does a bloke decide to arrive with a hand grenade - pushing the anti-war protest out of the news.
Have you seen *any* serious coverage or discussion about this protest since yesterday? It's all about hand grenades and tanks and bombs and rocket launchers.
If one were so inclined, it could be suggested that this recent flurry of "terrorist" activity (from Colombia, where a US Spy Plane has crashed yesterday) is a perfect opportunity to bury anti-war protest news and to keep people panicked and afraid for their lives.
In turn making it easier to convince on-the-fence people about bombing Baghdad because, hey, hand grenades and rocket launchers and stuff.
Tanks on the streets? Armed police at Stansted Airport searching cars?
"Yes but Sept 11th level of threat".
Really? Ok that is a bad thing then, no question. But what I am questioning is why now? Why in the run-up to the UN Weapons Inspectors report and tomorrow's demo in Hyde Park and in the same week France and Germany insist they comply with International Law and not begin arbitrary bombing campaigns on the basis of "He might do something bad if he continues though"
Last time I checked, Al Queda were responsible for Sept 11th, not Iraq.
And they didn't use WOMD, they used box-cutters.
I get the odd feeling that something else will be narrowly averted today as well, and we'll be told within the hour that the culprit is a 37yr old man from Venuzuala.
If we had that level of intelligence and knowledge so soon after Sept 11th, maybe we could have actually apprehended those responsible instead of pursuing an easier-to-find enemy?
Page: