Commodore Remix

Apparently "sources in the DoT" claim that the hand luggage ban on flights from the UK could be permanent.

So that's all the shops in the departure lounge fucked then.

All I can say is they'd fucking better lower the price of airline drinks and food, and make the in-flight magazine a hell of a lot more entertaining.

Or is this the latest bright idea to try and reduce air passengers by making flying even more of a living hell than it already is?

I reckon the terrorists have already won if we can't even enjoy basic things such as drinking the drink of our choice, or reading a book on a long flight.

I reckon we're due for an upsurge in air rage, too.

My prediction is that once the fuss has died down and they actually find that most of the arrests have been proved to be wrong, there will be a lot of awkward questions asked about the events of today and why they happened.

Finding it hard to say express how outraged I am that you can't even take a fucking book onto a plane. And how the hell _are_ you supposed to keep small children amused?? Read them the safety card??

Chris

I have to fly in and out of Chicago every week, thats 8 Flights, one for trip.

Some planes have LCD screens, so I can watch a movie. Most of the time they dont, which becomes quite boring.

I cannot drink Pop anymore due to my recent medical conditions, so Juice and Water is pretty much it, however I refuse to drink Water and Juice from a Plane, they are not exactly the most sanitary place to get food and drinks.

I normaly buy a bottle of Orange Juice just before I board a plane. I guess thats all over now.

Its going to be a pain in the a$$ to travel for me.

And this just a day after a report criticising Governments for blowing "the terrorist threat" out of all rational proportions. And a report presented to the FBI of 462 suicide bombers that stated that 95% of them had political motives to force a democratic state to remove armed combat forces. And yet neither the US or UK Government will admit this, instead insisting it's a vague, open-ended war against people who want to "destroy our freedom", or "destroy democracy".

And then the media today reporting dutifully, as if everyone now 100% believes the intelligence community and the police. Oh no, they haven't made any mistakes or acted out of political pressure, have they? John Reid using the word "unprecedented" to describe the plans of the terrorists who planned to kill about 900 people. "unprecedented"? It cheapens the English language.

So much blood on so many hands, and a world I'm ashamed to have to tell my children about. We'll tell them stories in years time about how we used to be able to go anywhere we wanted.

Chris

Utter BS imho... politics that is, not Chris's words. The world in general.

the terrorists ARE winning....not with "Blow Stuff up" terrorism, but with Mental terrorism !!!

No they're not. We'll all be losers in the end, what's the result of any war today, no matter if conventionel or whatever.
(I'd even tend to say those terrorists have already lost a long time before thus making them become terrorists)

Whether the terrorists have won depends on what you think they wanted.

If you go with the actual facts, then they haven't won, because occupation troops are still in Iraq.

Ironically if you go with the definitions of Bush and Blair: i.e. that the terrorists want to destroy our way of life and remove our freedoms, then they HAVE already achieved a victory. I certainly feel less free, and that my way of life is under threat, ironically from the Government more than the terrorists. I just know I feel like the loser here.

Chris

Romeo Knight wrote:No they're not. We'll all be losers in the end, what's the result of any war today, no matter if conventionel or whatever.
(I'd even tend to say those terrorists have already lost a long time before thus making them become terrorists)

I havn't posted here in a LONG time, but I have to applaud you Romeo for pointing out what most are quite simply ignoring in their own comfortable surroundings.

Bravo!

I have questions:

Once all out freedoms and liberties have been removed to protect us, will our so called enemies - A) Rename us "Guantanamo Britain" ... B) Look, Laugh, and swear to liberate us from our despot dictator based on having WMD and stockpilling them for the US. C) Congratulate us for becomming what they were before we decided to invade. ?

Will we free the middle east and be forced to live in amercan made "Panic Rooms" to be safe ?

Will they rename the middle east to "The United States of Israel" at the end of all this ?

Can we only defeat terrorism, by becomming terrorists ouselves ? and if so, and we are as bad as they, are we not then open to invasion on the same grounds from someone else intent on doing good ?

How long before Beruit has a Pizza Hut ?

How long before we reach a state fast becoming known as "The Soylent Green Condition"... (food disc's and willful euthenasia) combined with the torrid world evident in the movie "BladeRunner".

And, is nuking the site from orbit REALLY the best solution, and if so, shouldn't it be pointing at the USA ? AND.. if that REALLY happened, and the world cried out in joy and terror all at the same time, would the sound be worth sampling and being used in a new C64 remix of Armageddon Man

And will free air travel REALLY depend on status and penis size !

*take the above with a pinch of salt*

Romeo Knight wrote:No they're not. We'll all be losers in the end, what's the result of any war today, no matter if conventionel or whatever.
(I'd even tend to say those terrorists have already lost a long time before thus making them become terrorists)

amen!

Did you know that, according to the UN, the whole world could, if it spent 20% of its annual weapons budget (which right now is 1,3 trill dollars), solve all its problems (hunger, poverty, deforrestation, aids and all other illnesses, teaching, finding land mines, the greenhouse effect, ..., the whole lot)?

Wonder who would want to be terrorists in such new world? An indirect solution is just at hand!

From a basic point of view, the problem with world-peace is:

Really good people rarely suppress bad people. Bad people suppress good people all the time.

Really good people rarely reach a state of power. Bad people strive for it.

How the hell can things turn out okay under those conditions? Oh well.

LMan / Remix64 wrote:From a basic point of view, the problem with world-peace is:

Really good people rarely suppress bad people. Bad people suppress good people all the time.

Really good people rarely reach a state of power. Bad people strive for it.

How the hell can things turn out okay under those conditions? Oh well.

Succinct

Well i believe for one thing is that the majority of people in this world will not let the terrorists win at all. Yes the terrorists have removed some of our freedoms and they will try to mess up our general way of life, but for me in the end we can adapt to these changes. It's a sensitive and difficult subject but i for one am not going to let them mess up my life.

LMan / Remix64 wrote:From a basic point of view, the problem with world-peace is:

Really good people rarely suppress bad people. Bad people suppress good people all the time.

Really good people rarely reach a state of power. Bad people strive for it.

How the hell can things turn out okay under those conditions? Oh well.

Amen.

*Apologies if I have offended any religious minorities by using a Christian prayer confirmation, there BTW*

Well, actually - no I'm not, so fuck off

Fact is though, governments fuck up and never really suffer. USA and UK sold these terrorists most of the weapons they use. USA even TRAINED them how to use them (duh)...

It's the little people that lose out every time - people like you and me and our families. Governments and people in power ALWAYS win. For a start, they ride in private jets...

Tonka