The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
And it's all because of me...
That's right people, send me fan mail and thank you letters, I send the balifs out...
That's right people, send me fan mail and thank you letters, I send the balifs out...
drat. time to move again i guess. Bloody bailiffs always finding me.
lol, by the way I looked up your address and the balifs are on their way, have a nice day...
Skorp1on wrote:
It was just
> an excuse to attack Iraq, there certainly wouldn't have been enough
> evidence. For example, if they thought it was France who planned the
> attack and was linked to Bin Laden, they would have been much less
> hasty to attack.
Hmmm if it was France i'm pretty sure they'd have attacked even faster :D
It was just
> an excuse to attack Iraq, there certainly wouldn't have been enough
> evidence. For example, if they thought it was France who planned the
> attack and was linked to Bin Laden, they would have been much less
> hasty to attack.
Hmmm if it was France i'm pretty sure they'd have attacked even faster :D
Unbeliever wrote:
> 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.
>
> I don't deny that there is proof in admission of the fact that Bin
> Laden planned 9/11. What I don't understand is linking Iraq to
> Afghanistan when there are two separate secular states with differing
> political beliefs.
George Bush is just finishing off what his Father didn't. It was just an excuse to attack Iraq, there certainly wouldn't have been enough evidence. For example, if they thought it was France who planned the attack and was linked to Bin Laden, they would have been much less hasty to attack.
> 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.
>
> I don't deny that there is proof in admission of the fact that Bin
> Laden planned 9/11. What I don't understand is linking Iraq to
> Afghanistan when there are two separate secular states with differing
> political beliefs.
George Bush is just finishing off what his Father didn't. It was just an excuse to attack Iraq, there certainly wouldn't have been enough evidence. For example, if they thought it was France who planned the attack and was linked to Bin Laden, they would have been much less hasty to attack.
I can read da SUN cos it like got big letter it has
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.
I don't deny that there is proof in admission of the fact that Bin Laden planned 9/11. What I don't understand is linking Iraq to Afghanistan when there are two separate secular states with differing political beliefs.
> Because on this occasion, as with Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror
> and tens of other things, they've been proven wrong.
I don't deny that there is proof in admission of the fact that Bin Laden planned 9/11. What I don't understand is linking Iraq to Afghanistan when there are two separate secular states with differing political beliefs.
"But The Sun quoted government sources, saying that members of the terror network planned to break into Legoland, near Windsor."
The Sun? It MUST be true, then.
The Sun? It MUST be true, then.
Practical Magic wrote:
> Never even engaged here did you Light ?
No I didn't. Point being? Would you care to discuss the numerous topics you ran away from with a full nappy and an empty head? Or do we not apply those rules to you Bell?
I didn't realise I HAD to reply to all of your horseshit. If I did, I'd be here 24/7...
> Never even engaged here did you Light ?
No I didn't. Point being? Would you care to discuss the numerous topics you ran away from with a full nappy and an empty head? Or do we not apply those rules to you Bell?
I didn't realise I HAD to reply to all of your horseshit. If I did, I'd be here 24/7...
Never even engaged here did you Light ?
Page: