Phoenix Network Forums

I believe that terorism is the latesc form of war! The former world wars were open, had borders, had netral countries, terorism knows no limits, terorists can strike everywere andeveryone and are so hard to find! Osama BinLaden is world known terorist leader and yet is nowere to find! Why?Terorists are the latest form of soldiers, driven in battle by many motives, principally being a God of some kind, or extremist love for country!

Is terorism more serrious or more dangerous war than other forms of war?

Terrorism has been around for centuries, today's form of terrorism is hyped by the media, just for a story. Sure the terrorist attacks in NYC, Madrid and most recently a foiled attempt in London, are terrible acts. But it's making people paranoid, and that's where the effectiveness of Terroist guerilla's lie. In making people look over their shoulder.

like i said, terrorism is not new, and it's been given too much relevance,, considering the fact of how most Interntional Powers wage war with each other, with no regard for civilian life (look at the israel-lebanon conflict).

I think this 'new' kind of war is not new at all. Just like shadowlabs says, its been around for ages (the term terrorising is nothing new). Perhaps its moving to a more global scale lately. The US department of Defense defines terrorism as follows:

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

This means little guerilla groups fighting the army in Columbia to protect their Coca fields can be classified as terrorism aswel (they intimidate local farmers/politicians to continue with what they want). The murder on the Dutch criticast Theo van Gogh was because he said 'bad things' about Moslims/Islam. These things have been going on ever since people had power and other people fight that power.

However, today things are getting pulled out of the relation. I think its bullshit to have hundreds of thousands of people dump their hand lugage just because some criminals want to bomb a few plains. Why aren't we allowed to take a bottle of wodka that we bought tax free on behind the security barriers of the airport?, that just doesn't make sense, now tons of people are victim because of some asshats. Thats the wrong way arround. Plus, if I sit in a plain for 8 hours I want to do my hair before ariving home/at work and now I cannot even take my hairgel with me. I'm sorry, thats just excessively.

And yeah, it's all hyped by the media, be realistic. After these terrorists got busted, woudn't the threat have decreased I mean total terrorists - 23 = less total terrorists. And why would the threat now be higher then any other random day. In my eyes its just a big circus put up to justify the billions of dollars which go to fighting terrorism.

Nothing new under the sun only much more crap surrounding it (terrorism is a multimilliondollar buiseness!)

I would rather have tangled hair than fall to the ground

The threat level was normal before the criminals got busted, how could it go down. Attacks are usually carried out in a series anyway, better safe than sorry. 23 out of 25 wouldn't be too bad, but it'd still be too few.


Thing is, people complain anyway. If there is no security and something happens, the government gets flamed. If there is security, it suddenly becomes a nuisance and the government gets flamed.

The problem i have with the "security meassures" are not the meassures themselves. They're a good idea. My problem is the implementation of these. You seriously think that if a terrorist group wanted to comit an act, they'd be stupid enough to do it on an airport of all places? These guys plan their stuff ahead of time, have the resources and the willigness to bomb any place they wanted.

The security measures are A_OK by me, but implementing them AFTER the fact that something happened is like saying "Oh, we've been caught with our pants down, better put on some underwear". It's simply ineffective. If you make "security" plan, there's always going to be a way around it, and these guys have the time, and again, the willingness to research a major "flaw" in said plan, and execute an attack.

Again, im all for security measures at airports being taken, but not after the pie has already hit us in the face (metaphorically speaking)


P.S: terrorists suck.

Hahahaha, tons and tons of security shitting on people who can't take their handlugage with them yet they fail to withhold a living person without any documents entering the plane. Good work guys, these improved measures make sure we are more safe in the air!

What if terrorists start recruiting childfighters just like the War Lords do in Afrika and other places on the world.

Wondering what i'm talking about? read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 93,00.html

I'm sorry if my language comes over abit faul, I just ridicule the current airport policies so this realy gave me a good laught. I don't like terrorists but I don't like the U.K / U.S goverment either.

"You seriously think that if a terrorist group wanted to comit an act, they'd be stupid enough to do it on an airport of all places?"

Err, yes? What's wrong with an airport? It's exactly the same as any other public building.


"but implementing them AFTER the fact that something happened is like saying "Oh, we've been caught with our pants down, better put on some underwear"."

Nothing happened, the attack was stopped.


"If you make "security" plan, there's always going to be a way around it, and these guys have the time, and again, the willingness to research a major "flaw" in said plan, and execute an attack."

So what you're saying is, drop the security cos there's always going to be a way around them.


"I'm sorry if my language comes over abit faul, I just ridicule the current airport policies"

What would you suggest then?

I suggest they get real, are they realy going to continue denying you to take water with you when you fly? Plus, if even a 12 year old can get into a plane without much trouble shoudn't the terrorists also be able to do this?

Airports show off by saying "Hey, we got duty free liqour, get your booze here" and then the goverment says "Noops, you ain't allowed to take the wodka you bought 5 minutes ago with you, you paid 30 dollars for it? to bad!". It just does not make sense.

I know I cannot give a good judgement on how they should act as I don't (nor does any of us) know whats happening behind the scenes. To me it looks like its a big show though, "We caught the bad guys but we still raise all security". If the threats are so realistic, why wait with raising the security level untill you caught the terrorists? Should you have not already and especialy have done so _before_ they got caught and where actualy capable of blowing up the planes?

Samppa wrote:"You seriously think that if a terrorist group wanted to comit an act, they'd be stupid enough to do it on an airport of all places?"

Err, yes? What's wrong with an airport? It's exactly the same as any other public building.

Yes, if you discount the fact of the hightened security is SUCH a public place (add train stations, and national landmarks to that one, after 9/11 that is). Yes there's a chance an attack would take place in an airport, likely? no.

Samppa wrote:"but implementing them AFTER the fact that something happened is like saying "Oh, we've been caught with our pants down, better put on some underwear"."

Nothing happened, the attack was stopped.

Read up ^. It was stopped because airports have emphasized on security AFTER 9/11.

Samppa wrote:"If you make "security" plan, there's always going to be a way around it, and these guys have the time, and again, the willingness to research a major "flaw" in said plan, and execute an attack."

So what you're saying is, drop the security cos there's always going to be a way around them.

Not at all. What im saying is, dont implement measures that are eventually going to be dropped because nothing will happen AFTER said measures have been taken. Keep on it. People will bitch either way, but people just dont want to be inconvienced. This holds true everytime mesures or no measures. What pisses people off is that they'll make these measures following an ATTEMPT, hold it up for a couple of days/weeks, and then just drop the measure, altogheter.

rootland wrote:"I'm sorry if my language comes over abit faul, I just ridicule the current airport policies"

What would you suggest then?

I didnt say this.

rootland wrote:Plus, if even a 12 year old can get into a plane without much trouble shoudn't the terrorists also be able to do this?

Children are not viewed as a threat in the West, maybe that is wrong but it is the case. It is considerably easier for a short 12 year old child to wander through onto an aircraft than it is for any adult. I don't see why you would think that if a child can get on, anyone can.

rootland wrote:Airports show off by saying "Hey, we got duty free liqour, get your booze here" and then the goverment says "Noops, you ain't allowed to take the wodka you bought 5 minutes ago with you, you paid 30 dollars for it? to bad!". It just does not make sense.

Granted. But how do you know where the bottle is really from etc. It is simpler to ban everything. And aren't the shops partly at blame if they sell anything even though they're aware you can't take it on board? btw, you speak much of this vodka bottle, is it a true instance?

rootland wrote:I know I cannot give a good judgement on how they should act as I don't (nor does any of us) know whats happening behind the scenes.

To be frank, stop bitching then. If you don't know behind the scenes, you really can't make assumptions that the security is for show.


[/quote]To me it looks like its a big show though, "We caught the bad guys but we still raise all security". If the threats are so realistic, why wait with raising the security level untill you caught the terrorists? Should you have not already and especialy have done so _before_ they got caught and where actualy capable of blowing up the planes?[/quote]

I thought I already said this, terrorist attacks are carried out in series. The police may have detained a number of people, but that is not to say there are more of them. Do you know how many airplanes leave from Heathrow to the US daily?

shadowlabs wrote:

Samppa wrote:"You seriously think that if a terrorist group wanted to comit an act, they'd be stupid enough to do it on an airport of all places?"

Err, yes? What's wrong with an airport? It's exactly the same as any other public building.

Yes, if you discount the fact of the hightened security is SUCH a public place (add train stations, and national landmarks to that one, after 9/11 that is). Yes there's a chance an attack would take place in an airport, likely? no.

Do you mean in such a public place?

shadowlabs wrote:

Samppa wrote:"but implementing them AFTER the fact that something happened is like saying "Oh, we've been caught with our pants down, better put on some underwear"."

Nothing happened, the attack was stopped.

Read up ^. It was stopped because airports have emphasized on security AFTER 9/11.

Eh? It was stopped by the UK police before the terrorists even got into an airport.

shadowlabs wrote:

Samppa wrote:"If you make "security" plan, there's always going to be a way around it, and these guys have the time, and again, the willingness to research a major "flaw" in said plan, and execute an attack."

So what you're saying is, drop the security cos there's always going to be a way around them.

Not at all. What im saying is, dont implement measures that are eventually going to be dropped because nothing will happen AFTER said measures have been taken. Keep on it. People will bitch either way, but people just dont want to be inconvienced. This holds true everytime mesures or no measures. What pisses people off is that they'll make these measures following an ATTEMPT, hold it up for a couple of days/weeks, and then just drop the measure, altogheter.

"I thought I already said this, terrorist attacks are carried out in series. The police may have detained a number of people, but that is not to say there are more of them. Do you know how many airplanes leave from Heathrow to the US daily?"

shadowlabs wrote:

rootland wrote:"I'm sorry if my language comes over abit faul, I just ridicule the current airport policies"

What would you suggest then?

I didnt say this.

And I didn't say you did say it..

Well well well, what do you know?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5261456.stm


/edit: Well damn it, it was nothing!

terorisem sux !!!

SR GDFGH

Make love, not war!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8911229950

Hey guys, watch the video and so post here.. What do you think about?

Beliavable or too high on Conspiracy Theories?