The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yep, that and more have been uttered by certain people and sections of the media. The decisions to deploy troops and armoured vehicles, and the whole caboodle of military personnel to the country's major airports was greeted with the usual liberal cynicism.
With war on Iraq looming, and Tony trying to garner support from an apathetic public, the common idea was that there was no threat but that the measures had been taken to scare us, sheep style, into believing this country was at risk from terrorism. Apparently, and often forgotten, the discovery of several terrorist cells in London with ricin was not enough to do that.
Nope, the sight of Chinook helicopters disgorging squaddies onto Heathrow's green fields was all one big PR stunt to get the public behind a war.
And, as usual, just like with other recent events, the doubters now have egg on their faces to compliment the other stuff coming from their mouths.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/ article/0,,30000-12290646,00.html
The plot was real.
But, and I'm predicting the rebuttals here, maybe this is also a bit of PR from the government ? Hardly, as there was no need to rake up the story if the only aim was to lie about it. And with the government wanting to promote UK tourism then Legoland would hardly be the best of places to use in such deception.
No, the threat was real, and prevented by the high profile deployment we all saw, and who some chose to ridicule.
Remember that nothing is now beyond belief in today's world. Just because it seems weird, or unheralded, or stupid, doesn't mean it is not a real threat or a real response.
After all, these are "interesting times".
With war on Iraq looming, and Tony trying to garner support from an apathetic public, the common idea was that there was no threat but that the measures had been taken to scare us, sheep style, into believing this country was at risk from terrorism. Apparently, and often forgotten, the discovery of several terrorist cells in London with ricin was not enough to do that.
Nope, the sight of Chinook helicopters disgorging squaddies onto Heathrow's green fields was all one big PR stunt to get the public behind a war.
And, as usual, just like with other recent events, the doubters now have egg on their faces to compliment the other stuff coming from their mouths.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/ article/0,,30000-12290646,00.html
The plot was real.
But, and I'm predicting the rebuttals here, maybe this is also a bit of PR from the government ? Hardly, as there was no need to rake up the story if the only aim was to lie about it. And with the government wanting to promote UK tourism then Legoland would hardly be the best of places to use in such deception.
No, the threat was real, and prevented by the high profile deployment we all saw, and who some chose to ridicule.
Remember that nothing is now beyond belief in today's world. Just because it seems weird, or unheralded, or stupid, doesn't mean it is not a real threat or a real response.
After all, these are "interesting times".
Page:
Yep, that and more have been uttered by certain people and sections of the media. The decisions to deploy troops and armoured vehicles, and the whole caboodle of military personnel to the country's major airports was greeted with the usual liberal cynicism.
With war on Iraq looming, and Tony trying to garner support from an apathetic public, the common idea was that there was no threat but that the measures had been taken to scare us, sheep style, into believing this country was at risk from terrorism. Apparently, and often forgotten, the discovery of several terrorist cells in London with ricin was not enough to do that.
Nope, the sight of Chinook helicopters disgorging squaddies onto Heathrow's green fields was all one big PR stunt to get the public behind a war.
And, as usual, just like with other recent events, the doubters now have egg on their faces to compliment the other stuff coming from their mouths.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/ article/0,,30000-12290646,00.html
The plot was real.
But, and I'm predicting the rebuttals here, maybe this is also a bit of PR from the government ? Hardly, as there was no need to rake up the story if the only aim was to lie about it. And with the government wanting to promote UK tourism then Legoland would hardly be the best of places to use in such deception.
No, the threat was real, and prevented by the high profile deployment we all saw, and who some chose to ridicule.
Remember that nothing is now beyond belief in today's world. Just because it seems weird, or unheralded, or stupid, doesn't mean it is not a real threat or a real response.
After all, these are "interesting times".
With war on Iraq looming, and Tony trying to garner support from an apathetic public, the common idea was that there was no threat but that the measures had been taken to scare us, sheep style, into believing this country was at risk from terrorism. Apparently, and often forgotten, the discovery of several terrorist cells in London with ricin was not enough to do that.
Nope, the sight of Chinook helicopters disgorging squaddies onto Heathrow's green fields was all one big PR stunt to get the public behind a war.
And, as usual, just like with other recent events, the doubters now have egg on their faces to compliment the other stuff coming from their mouths.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/ article/0,,30000-12290646,00.html
The plot was real.
But, and I'm predicting the rebuttals here, maybe this is also a bit of PR from the government ? Hardly, as there was no need to rake up the story if the only aim was to lie about it. And with the government wanting to promote UK tourism then Legoland would hardly be the best of places to use in such deception.
No, the threat was real, and prevented by the high profile deployment we all saw, and who some chose to ridicule.
Remember that nothing is now beyond belief in today's world. Just because it seems weird, or unheralded, or stupid, doesn't mean it is not a real threat or a real response.
After all, these are "interesting times".
Very interesting...
I was one of the sceptics at the time. I suppose it's only natural to question what the government tell you when they don't offer anything to back it up, regardless of the justifications for maintaining confidentiality, but perhaps we should have more faith in Blair.
Though there is, of course, the argument that simply because on this occasion the gvt were dealing with a legitimate threat, it's no good grounds to begin blindly assuming everything we hear from them to be the truth.
Perhaps the only lesson is that we simply can't know either way, and just because there is room for doubt, it is only doubt, nothing more solid.
I was one of the sceptics at the time. I suppose it's only natural to question what the government tell you when they don't offer anything to back it up, regardless of the justifications for maintaining confidentiality, but perhaps we should have more faith in Blair.
Though there is, of course, the argument that simply because on this occasion the gvt were dealing with a legitimate threat, it's no good grounds to begin blindly assuming everything we hear from them to be the truth.
Perhaps the only lesson is that we simply can't know either way, and just because there is room for doubt, it is only doubt, nothing more solid.
Why didn't they say that then?
None of the information contained in that page had any proof to back it up or details of the sources. There is no more reason to believe it now than there was then, and no reason to think it's anything more than fiction.
So forgive me for not being any more convinced.
So forgive me for not being any more convinced.
Intelligence sources, is that good enough for you, plus the fact no one is denying it. "intelligence sources" is essentially a wording for known people with the security services who do not want to reveal identities for very good reasons.
You can say there is no evidence, sure, but where is the evidence to say it was a hoax ? Just because a 747 didn't blow up doesn't mean it could not have happened.
Likewise, you can never reveal intel like this at the time because that endangers sources, and people, and tips off those you want to catch.
It's not reason to believe everything, but it does show that the sceptics should be a little less vehement in their ridiculing next time, in case it's a real situation.
You can say there is no evidence, sure, but where is the evidence to say it was a hoax ? Just because a 747 didn't blow up doesn't mean it could not have happened.
Likewise, you can never reveal intel like this at the time because that endangers sources, and people, and tips off those you want to catch.
It's not reason to believe everything, but it does show that the sceptics should be a little less vehement in their ridiculing next time, in case it's a real situation.
But how does it show that the sceptics should be a little less vehement?
Because on this occasion, as with Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror and tens of other things, they've been proven wrong.
I believe there is a chance that France will attack us. I believe there is a chance that God exists and will come down on judgement day. Yeah, sceptics, you'll see that it 'could' all happen, um...even if it doesn't.
;-)
;-)
That's true. It was on the Sky site, so it must be true. More proof, I don't need.
*rolls eyes heavenward*
*rolls eyes heavenward*
Star Fury wrote:
> Because on this occasion, as with Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror
> and tens of other things, they've been proven wrong.
*Sigh* HOW have they been proven wrong?
> Because on this occasion, as with Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror
> and tens of other things, they've been proven wrong.
*Sigh* HOW have they been proven wrong?
Page: