Do You Care - Terror Alert Level Raised?

[cryingmime]

so honestly, do you care that the terror alert levels at airports were raised?

r

[Claverhouse]

I interpreted A Little (more no than yes) as meaning less than caring, eg: anti-caring.

All these things are crap, to maintain the vicious hold of the democratic system and scare people into supporting them.

And if you do catch the people who want to murder others for their cause, since they do exist, just kill them first, and don't panic the masses.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Heleuiski]

No.

[nomir_dva]

The overall terror alert is ALWAYS 'elevated,' which means that there is a "significant risk of terrorist attacks." It's fear-mongering bullshit.

[Ferrus]

And if you do catch the people who want to murder others for their cause, since they do exist, just kill them first
Haha, very true.

[Nighthawk]

Yes, it worries me because I don't know what the government(s) is/are really up to. Is there really a threat, or will this be used as justification to curtail more civil liberties? Also, is this a prelude to justify more agressive action in other parts of the world? These thoughts always come to mind when I see heightened security.

[Dom]

I interpreted A Little (more no than yes) as meaning less than caring, eg: anti-caring.

All these things are crap, to maintain the vicious hold of the democratic system and scare people into supporting them.

And if you do catch the people who want to murder others for their cause, since they do exist, just kill them first, and don't panic the masses.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Such as the Brazilian?

[Heleuiski]

Such as the Brazilian?
WORD.

[Fingers]

Couldn't give a monkeys about imaginary threats

[omnirook]

I refuse to allow the Administration to play me for a sucker. I know that the terror alert crap is nothing more than a means to manipulate the masses.

2 things -

1 - For months after 9/11 - and periodically since - Grand Central Station in NYC has been "protected" by a lone cop sitting in a squad car w/his lights on, blocking off one of the Park Avenue South Viaduct ramps, creating massive traffic jams and delays. What good did this do? Lots. It showed the dummies that their government cared and was conscientiously doing something to make them safe. Yeah, right ... Hello? Even better is -

2 - What has been causing massive traffic delays on the Brooklyn Bridge since 9/12 - the cop sitting there, reading his novel or newspaper while blocking off one of the bridge's main lanes. Now that's real security! Nobody could ride up and slam right into him and thereby set off a bomb that could bring the Brooklyn Bridge down. No, the cop's paperback would prevent that.

The best has to be the Midtown Tunnel. Oh, the delays there after 9/11 were so impresive that people still remember them. Hours to get to Queens from Manhattan while the cops and National Guard selectively pulled over vans driven by brown people and searched them. Only old, ugly, run down vans, mind you. UPS, Fed Ex, and the US Mail trucks did not even have to pause. Neither did the passenger cars being driven by whites. No bomb could possibly have been placed in any vehicle not driven by a brown person. Just could not be. I felt so reassured!

[Claverhouse]

Such as the Brazilian?

No. Because, as I have expressed here, that was a barbaric private murder carried out by an incompetent and fucked-up feminised police force. What that has to do with trials and capital punishment beyond your non-comprehension of the difference between illegal and legal murder, I can't imagine.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Heleuiski]

fucked-up feminised police force.
Claverhouse :ph34r:

Feminised?

*raises eyebrow*

[Dom]

No. Because, as I have expressed here, that was a barbaric private murder carried out by an incompetent and fucked-up feminised police force. What that has to do with trials and capital punishment beyond your non-comprehension of the difference between illegal and legal murder, I can't imagine.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Well dear boy, I thought this had somethign to do with it:



And if you do catch the people who want to murder others for their cause, since they do exist, just kill them first, and don't panic the masses.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Just kill them frist??? Hardly implies due process? Does it?

This is the problem, Claverhouse dear boy, if you are going to allow people to kill people, in certain circumstances, you had better get it right!

The only thing making De Menzes death a murder and not a legal killing is what was under his shirt.... Nothing to do with feminsied policing....

You call his killers murders, if he had had a bomb, you'll be calling them hero's regardless of the total breakdown in the process leading up to his shooting.

[kuranes]

I heard the Newark airport was a disaster today because the rules for carrying fluids have been tightened. So . . .everyone had to give up their perfume, toothpaste, etc. before boarding. And EVERY piece of luggage for EVERY passenger had to be searched. Eventually "carry on" will be a relic of the good old days, I think. I remember carrying some fireworks in carry-on to a 4th of July party. Fagettabatit now.

[EmmaPeel]

I care, but what do you want me to do about it?? How could you not care?

[cryingmime]

I heard the Newark airport was a disaster today because the rules for carrying fluids have been tightened. So . . .everyone had to give up their perfume, toothpaste, etc. before boarding. And EVERY piece of luggage for EVERY passenger had to be searched. Eventually "carry on" will be a relic of the good old days, I think. I remember carrying some fireworks in carry-on to a 4th of July party. Fagettabatit now.
even lip-balm is contraband now. soon, it will be belts and shoelaces, like in prison.

:-)

r

[Dom]

I care, but what do you want me to do about it?? How could you not care?

Because you can do anything about it, or because it's mostly fabricated bull?

[EmmaPeel]

Yes, it worries me because I don't know what the government(s) is/are really up to. Is there really a threat, or will this be used as justification to curtail more civil liberties? Also, is this a prelude to justify more agressive action in other parts of the world? These thoughts always come to mind when I see heightened security.

I'm glad they caught them. I don't care if they up security whereever, but I don't want them sticking their equipment in every nook and cranny of people's private property.

[EmmaPeel]

Because you can do anything about it, or because it's mostly fabricated bull?
What makes you think it was fabricated bull? You can't handle stress, can you?

[omnirook]

even lip-balm is contraband now. soon, it will be belts and shoelaces, like in prison.

:-)

r
And the mental/emotional defectives who fill the ranks of our police and security forces just love it! It gives them more power to fuck w/people. It's even better than a pill that would make your dick 3 inches longer and 2 inches bigger around - you are the man! It must be so much fun to race through the streets w/the lights on and siren blaring. I'm envious ... The hunger for more power on the part of our "security" people is so embarrassingly obvious at this point that even hardcore conservatives (ie, mental/emotional cripples) should be able to see it for what it is - and always has been. I can't wait for id cards and microchips under one's skin! I'll make a fortune in forging those and finding ways to hack in and alter the records, so that some slob in the middle of nowhere will be arrested for a crime committed by one of my customers on the corner of Broadway and West 42nd Street!

[libertarianjim]

The only time I ever cared about the alert level going up was the time I got searched at McCarran in Vegas in 2003. For some reason, they searched me TWICE: once at the first checkpoint, and then again right before I got on the flight, like I would have picked up some explosives at one of the airport shops between checkpoints.

I will say this, though. They were nothing but professional and polite. I doubt Pittsburgh International would have been as civil.

[Leftfield]

Yes, it worries me because I don't know what the government(s) is/are really up to. Is there really a threat, or will this be used as justification to curtail more civil liberties? Also, is this a prelude to justify more agressive action in other parts of the world? These thoughts always come to mind when I see heightened security.

Wow, exactly the answer I was thinking of... we need your "tank image" to validate the actions used by our government as a result of the new terror status... thank the Republicans for doing their jobs to the best of their abilities... and God bless America too!

[Claverhouse]

Well dear boy, I thought this had somethign to do with it:



Just kill them frist??? Hardly implies due process? Does it?

Indeed it does. Kill them legally before they kill you, not go out and shoot them down. Still first.


This is the problem, Claverhouse dear boy, if you are going to allow people to kill people, in certain circumstances, you had better get it right!

We do allow people to kill people in certain circumstances. We are doing so in Afghanistan and Iraq, for no other reason than to suck up to the demented ideas of our American masters. It is better to get it right certainly, but even if you don't, that is better than surrendering to the enemy's ideas.


The only thing making De Menzes death a murder and not a legal killing is what was under his shirt.... Nothing to do with feminsied policing....

I have no idea what was under his shirt, but as they were seeking muslim terrorists, and a/ he was not a muslim, b/ he was not even asian and therefore possibly an Islamic terrorist, c/ he did absolutely nothing wrong and had committed no suspicious act, d/ they had followed him all the way from his home to the tube station, at which any time they could have stopped him, e/ instead of which they pumped 7/8 bullets into his head: this was a cold-blooded murder carried out by hysterical and incompetent police, commanded by two of the most inferior and incompetent leaders the Met has ever suffered ( Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and Commander Cressida Dick: Blair being responsible for weakening the Met with progressive reformism ). Worst of all it not only destroyed a man's life, but there was no possible benefit from such a stupid and vicious act.


You call his killers murders, if he had had a bomb, you'll be calling them hero's regardless of the total breakdown in the process leading up to his shooting.

Um, yes. But he didn't have a bomb did he ? Nor was he likely to have had one. This is like saying a policeman has the right to kill bystanders during hot pursuits through fast driving --- which happens quite a lot in Britain, incidentally --- but if he's hit someone carrying a bomb and thus saved lives then he should be acclaimed for his car-handling.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dom]

What makes you think it was fabricated bull? You can't handle stress, can you?

I'm not great with stress no, on that point you are right. However, I find the idea of it being fabricated bull more frightening than it being ture....

And this is over hyped bull.... all thi sno toothpaste.... for crying out loud they CAUGHT THEM!!!!!

*shakes head*

Has a sinlge gooey explosive device been found in almost 24 hrs of serious checking??? NOPE! (At least none reported to us that is, maybe they wouldn't say after all they would hate to scare us.....)

[zhang_bob]

Odds: On ways to die


9,300,000/1 DYING IN TERRORIST ATTACK

LAST year there were 651 significant international terrorist attacks worldwide, killing nearly 2,000 people.



300,000,000/1 FAIRGROUND ACCIDENT

THE worst rollercoaster accident in Britain was in 1972 when five children were killed on the Big Dipper in Battersea, London, when one of the cars broke loose and collided with another.

11,000,000/1 PLANE CRASH

PLANE crashes worldwide claim 1,300 people every year. Young men are most likely to emerge from the wreckage alive - and 12 per cent of passengers who survive the impact will die from shock later.

300,000,000/1 SHARK ATTACK

AROUND 40 people are killed every year from shark attacks, with the numbers increasing as more people take holidays on coasts where sharks live.

250,000,000/1 FALLING COCONUT

COCONUTS apparently kill around 150 people every year. Falling from a height of 80 feet, they can build up an impact speed of 50 mph.



10,000,000/1 KILLED BY LIGHTNING

IN the UK around five people are killed by being hit by lightning every year. And men are four times more likely to be struck than women.

10,000,000/1

KILLED BY THE ESCAPE OF RADIATION FROM A NEARBY NUCLEAR POWER STATION.

THE chances of an explosion at a nuclear reactor are increasing with the risk of terrorism and as conventional fuels run out. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster and its aftermath has killed an estimated 30,000 people.

5,000,000/1 SCALDED BY HOT TAP WATER.

CHILDREN under five are most at risk, with 126 accidents reported every year in Britain. In Japan, around 150 people die from hot water scalding every year.

4,400,000/1 LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE KILLED USING A RIGHT-HANDED PRODUCT.

MORE than 2,500 left-handed people are killed every year around the world from using equipment meant for right-handed people. The right-handed power saw is the most deadly item.

3,500,000/1 DYING OF A SNAKE BITE.

SNAKE bites kill an estimated 25,000 people a year. More people die from snakebite in India than in any other country in the world, with the total death toll estimated I to average 10 - 12,000 annually.

3,000,000/1 DYING FROM FOOD POISONING

MORE than 79,000 cases of food poisoning were reported last year in the UK, while every year around 200 people die as a result of eating contaminated food.

685,000/1 DROWNING IN THE BATH.

A HIGHER percentage of people drown in their bath water than in public swimming pools, with young children and the elderly most at risk. Around 25 babies drown in baths every year.

2,300,000/1 DYING FROM FALLING OFF A LADDER.

ON average 15 people die from falling off ladders every year in Britain, and around 1,200 suffer serious injuries. A quarter of all falls happen off ladders.

2,000,000/1 DYING AFTER FALLING OUT OF BED.

IN Britain around 20 people die from falling out of bed every year, with the young and the elderly most at risk.


500,000/1 BEING KILLED IN A TRAIN CRASH.

DESPITE a number of fatal crashes, public transport is still the safest way to travel. Buses are even safer than trains, with the odds of being killed 13 million to one.

2.5/1 DYING FROM A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE

THE leading cause of death in Britain, coronary heart disease and strokes account for over 200,000 deaths every I year. Someone has a heart attack every two minutes.

43,500/1 BEING KILLED IN AN ACCIDENT AT WORK

MORE accidents happen at work than anywhere else. Every year there are more than 25,000 serious workplace accidents, killing around 300 people in the UK.

8,000/1 KILLED IN A ROAD ACCIDENT.

EVERY year 1,500 car drivers and adult passengers die in road smashes, while around 1,000 pedestrians and cyclists die in road accidents. Worldwide, over 3,000 people are killed in road crashes daily.

5/1 DYING FROM CANCER

AROUND 130,000 people die from cancer every year, of whom 65,000 are aged under 75. The most common killers are lung, breast, colon and prostate cancer.

[cryingmime]

bob,

did you ever read the book Th!nk (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?link_code=ur2&tag=aspergerplane-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&location=%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F1416523782%2Fsr%3D8-1%2Fqid%3D1155244062%2Fref%3Dpd_bbs_1%3Fie%3DUTF8)?

r

[Heleuiski]

Thanks for putting this into perspective Zhang.

[Birdsnest]

The codes are a bit silly, but I still want to know and I do care. Maybe they should change the alerts to simple statements about terrorist activity rather than have colour codes, but I do like to be made aware when there is increased activity. At the very least you can get a bit more prepared, cancel your travel, or call in sick.

[Heleuiski]

Indeed it does. Kill them legally before they kill you, not go out and shoot them down. Still first.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Dom]

Indeed it does. Kill them legally before they kill you, not go out and shoot them down. Still first.



We do allow people to kill people in certain circumstances. We are doing so in Afghanistan and Iraq, for no other reason than to suck up to the demented ideas of our American masters. It is better to get it right certainly, but even if you don't, that is better than surrendering to the enemy's ideas.



I have no idea what was under his shirt, but as they were seeking muslim terrorists, and a/ he was not a muslim, b/ he was not even asian and therefore possibly an Islamic terrorist, c/ he did absolutely nothing wrong and had committed no suspicious act, d/ they had followed him all the way from his home to the tube station, at which any time they could have stopped him, e/ instead of which they pumped 7/8 bullets into his head: this was a cold-blooded murder carried out by hysterical and incompetent police, commanded by two of the most inferior and incompetent leaders the Met has ever suffered ( Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and Commander Cressida Dick: Blair being responsible for weakening the Met with progressive reformism ). Worst of all it not only destroyed a man's life, but there was no possible benefit from such a stupid and vicious act.



Um, yes. But he didn't have a bomb did he ? Nor was he likely to have had one. This is like saying a policeman has the right to kill bystanders during hot pursuits through fast driving --- which happens quite a lot in Britain, incidentally --- but if he's hit someone carrying a bomb and thus saved lives then he should be acclaimed for his car-handling.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

You've missed my point, which isn't unsual as I'm a bit fuzzy and general expect everyone to have the intution of a minor deity...

I quite agree with everythign you have said about De Menzes, I want that straight first... I'm incensed that no one is carryign the can and the first best suited to do so is Ian Blairs and the offices who shot shoudl certainly not be allowed to ever opperate as armed officers again.

To what I was trying to say, which actualy your post highlights, is that despite every one of the flaws you meantioned, shooting him qould have been ok If he had been carrying a bomb? This you agree with.
Um, yes. . When we then think about you comments on shooting first, legaly, then we reach my point. If every deatil had been the same but De Menzies had a bomb you'd have accepted the killing as Legal, even though you admit here that the process up to the shooting was inherently flawed, even criminally negligent.... Thats my fear if we could justify that, because by mere chance they had been right, then the risk to other innocents is huge, this is why justifing the taking of human life is such a mine field there is no room for mistakes is there?

You think De Menzies could happen again? I do! Even though it's been decided that it was a criminal mistake.

At no point have I suggested I'd rather surrender to the enemies ideals, I find myself constanlty argueing that we need to stand fight for our freedom rather than sign it away in the hope that others will ensure our peace. But certainly when not on a battlefield, where you can comfort your decisions on who to shoot by whether they are shooting at you. In the context of airports, and train stations, shooting and executing people is dangerous and we can not be certain that we will get it right....

[Dom]

At the very least you can get a bit more prepared, cancel your travel, or call in sick.

:huh:

WOW, paranoid much,

anyway this is doing what the terrorist want, changing our way of life, behaving in an odd fashion....

[Claverhouse]

and the first best suited to do so is Ian Blairs and the offices who shot shoudl certainly not be allowed to ever opperate as armed officers again.

Or possibly shot to demonstrate that it is wrong for police to shoot innocent people dead.


To what I was trying to say, which actualy your post highlights, is that despite every one of the flaws you meantioned, shooting him qould have been ok If he had been carrying a bomb? This you agree with. . When we then think about you comments on shooting first, legaly, then we reach my point. If every deatil had been the same but De Menzies had a bomb you'd have accepted the killing as Legal, even though you admit here that the process up to the shooting was inherently flawed, even criminally negligent.... Thats my fear if we could justify that, because by mere chance they had been right, then the risk to other innocents is huge, this is why justifing the taking of human life is such a mine field there is no room for mistakes is there?

The difference is... that had he been carrying a bomb, then he would be intending to use it to kill people, and therefore the action of killing him to prevent that would be justified. Since this man wasn't even remotely near to being a terrorist killing him wasn't justified. If another man is carrying a bomb you are saying they shouldn't shoot him, but allow him to carry out his business undisturbed ? No doubt terrorists should be able to claim a breach of Human Rights if they are not allowed to blow people up.


You think De Menzies could happen again? I do! Even though it's been decided that it was a criminal mistake.

I think it will increasingly happen as our civilisation breaks down, and the democratic system turns increasingly trigger-happy to defend it's degraded existence.


At no point have I suggested I'd rather surrender to the enemies ideals, I find myself constanlty argueing that we need to stand fight for our freedom rather than sign it away in the hope that others will ensure our peace. But certainly when not on a battlefield, where you can comfort your decisions on who to shoot by whether they are shooting at you. In the context of airports, and train stations, shooting and executing people is dangerous and we can not be certain that we will get it right....

And this means... ? In real terms... ? Doing something... ? But not hurting anyone... ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dom]

The difference is... that had he been carrying a bomb, then he would be intending to use it to kill people, and therefore the action of killing him to prevent that would be justified. Since this man wasn't even remotely near to being a terrorist killing him wasn't justified. If another man is carrying a bomb you are saying they shouldn't shoot him, but allow him to carry out his business undisturbed ? No doubt terrorists should be able to claim a breach of Human Rights if they are not allowed to blow people up.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

What I mean is the process by which you decided he was a threat and thus needed killing before the ultimate proof was found (i.e the existence or non existence of a bomb) was flawed, regardless of whether he had one or not.

I agree if you killed him and he had a bomb then yes it is justified in the name of defending the intended victims. However, if the process of assertaining him as a risk was the same, as the real circumstance, I'd still call it criminally negligent. Everything pointed to him NOT BEING a terrorist, this we agree, if he had turned out to be one, and had been shot on the baisis of the the evidence available in the actual circumstances than that is still alarming and wrong....

You can't shoot a guy on a fucking hunch, even if you turn out to be right, it sets a dangerous precedent...

[C.J.Woolf]

Threat Level = Hysteria Level = Traveller Annoyance Level

They were out there last week. They were plotting to kill us last week. It's no different today, except the authorities caught some of them plotting. Once again it's time to freak out and defend against last week's threat.

Terrorists want to kill us. Our cars also "want" to kill us, as does water, lightning, and gravity. Gah.

[Dom]

Threat Level = Hysteria Level = Traveller Annoyance Level

They were out there last week. They were plotting to kill us last week. It's no different today, except the authorities caught some of them plotting. Once again it's time to freak out and defend against last week's threat.

Terrorists want to kill us. Our cars also "want" to kill us, as does water, lightning, and gravity. Gah.

Quite agree

[Claverhouse]

Who says they had to shoot him anyway ? If they had time to tail him for half an hour they had time to arrange a stoppage in front of people quarrelling, and, when he slowed down, to surround him and seize his hands.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Dom]

Who says they had to shoot him anyway ? If they had time to tail him for half an hour they had time to arrange a stoppage in front of people quarrelling, and, when he slowed down, to surround him and seize his hands.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Agreed....

[Dom]

Who says they had to shoot him anyway ? If they had time to tail him for half an hour they had time to arrange a stoppage in front of people quarrelling, and, when he slowed down, to surround him and seize his hands.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

As I said agreed, and perhaps something that would have been tired if a shoot to kill policy was the prefered option....

[zhang_bob]

bob,

did you ever read the book Th!nk (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?link_code=ur2&tag=aspergerplane-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&location=%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F1416523782%2Fsr%3D8-1%2Fqid%3D1155244062%2Fref%3Dpd_bbs_1%3Fie%3DUTF8)?

rCan`t say I have, but it seems interesting so I may read it.