Major Terrorist Threat in UK-US discovered

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Here's one question: if all of the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia and all of the conspirators arrested today are from Pakistan, why do we wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

What I heard on the TV news this morning is that all arrested today are UK citizens, but of Pakistani descent. They are "home grown," just like those who bombed the subways last July.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

To respond to NA, last time I checked there was massive escalation before we did anything in Iraq, with he exception of expelling them from Kuwait, of course. Do I really need to list all of the attacks against American targets that took place prior to the invasion?

It will escalate on their side no matter what our side does. So the choices are to fight back, give in to their demands, or accept their continuing escalation without reprisal.

I think that's where I find the most disconnect between people of "whatever camp you want to call it". I can't buy into the whole "they started it" thing, because - it doesn't matter. What matter is how we respond. It's like one very serious playground fight between a couple of bully's, only there is not principal in this situation. I have a really hard time defending what actions we have taken. Maybe I'm bing too optomistic and simplistic to think that it is possible to "take the high road" but, we're getting targeted because we got involved. It has escalated to the point where we are the primary enemy and target. Have we really done anyone any good here? We certainly have no done much good for ourselves.

[scaeagles]

Are you an isolationist, then, NA? I don't know how to not get "involved".

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Are you an isolationist, then, NA? I don't know how to not get "involved".

If you makes you feel more comfortable to put an overarching label on me, then go for it. I just may not agree with all of the principals of "isolationism" all of the time.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

If you makes you feel more comfortable to put an overarching label on me, then go for it. I just may not agree with all of the principals of "isolationism" all of the time.

It was an honest question, not meant to be rhetorical. I know isolationists. I, obviously, am not one.

If we don't get involved in Iraq invading Kuwait, Saddam next goes into Saudi Arabia. If we don't get involved in Afghanistan, the Taliban coninues to offer safe haven to all of Al Qaida. If we don't get involved in Bosnia, ethnic cleansing turns into genocide. If we don't get invol.....you get the idea.

Staying too far removed from the situation has never been beneficial. Usually the situation grows until it can no longer be ignored.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It was an honest question, not meant to be rhetorical. I know isolationists. I, obviously, am not one.

If we don't get involved in Iraq invading Kuwait, Saddam next goes into Saudi Arabia. If we don't get involved in Afghanistan, the Taliban coninues to offer safe haven to all of Al Qaida. If we don't get involved in Bosnia, ethnic cleansing turns into genocide. If we don't get invol.....you get the idea.

Staying too far removed from the situation has never been beneficial. Usually the situation grows until it can no longer be ignored.

Would you consider Switzerland isolationist? I like Switzerland.

I try and look at world situation in the same way I look at the choices I make in life. MOST of the time, I'm better off if I don't get involved. That certainly doesn't mean I always take my own advice, but usually, in retrospect, I would be better off to leave myself out of situations. It's an ego thing. Sure, it makes me feel better when I can pull my weight and have opinions, tell people off and puff myself up, but who does it really help?

[Tramspotter]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Would you consider Switzerland isolationist? I like Switzerland.

Not Isolationist as much as a remote non-player

They had no problem melting down Ann franks charm braclet and banking it to keep the peace... of course I'm speaking figuratively, although they were permitted to maintain "nutrality" don't hold to it too romanticaly they were most certainly Germanys Bitches.

[Prudence]

I wonder what the new status quo will be. I suppose I should be more concerned with global affairs, but I'm selfishly thinking about me.

I know today is a day of flux and various officials and experts make recommnedations and predictions that may or may not become reality and that making plans based on today's guidelines is a foolish endeavor.

Still, I wonder. I didn't think my mascara would every be a bit of dangerous contraband. Will the no liquid rule persist? My guess is yes. My understanding is that the liquid bomb requires a liquid something or other, a powdered explosive, and an ignition source. (This is probably too simplistic and represents only what info I was able to glean from scanning the stories this morning.) Prohibiting the ignition source would mean prohibiting all battery-operated items - phones, laptops, wristwatches, iPods, et.... Prohibiting the powdered items would be extremely difficult as I understand it - effectively prohibiting all carry-on items. Therefore, the easiest item to prohibit is liquids.

But will it go further? Will we all go to the airport in the future with our passports and valium in ziploc baggies?

And that can have a serious impact on the travel industry. Airlines lose luggage all the damn time - and now I have to pack my favorite lipstick in checked luggage? I realize this is a minor inconvenience in the whole scheme of being blown up and sprinkled over some metropolitan area, but the travel "rules" have always been to check as little as possible. Heck, some airlines have started (Ryanair) or were planning to start (I swear I read this somewhere) charging to check luggage. If I have to check everything, luggage delivery is unreliable, I can't bring bottled water on the plane, airlines only serve for sale food/beverage for a significant markup, and I have to sit on a six-hour flight with no book, magazine, or anything, then I'm thinking I won't be flying any more. And heck - why just planes? They haven't before, but I keep wondering when these measures will extend to other forms of transportation - trains, buses, boats.

Now, like I said, this is all selfish thinking. And I'm sure y'all can think of any number of erroneous presumptions I've just made, and criticize my gall in thinking of my own comfort.

But I do think of my own comfort. And I'm not the only one. So, like 9/11, the impact isn't just a 5-hour security line today, it's me deciding to stop planning that vacation 18 months away because the combo of fear and inconvenience is just too much and I'd rather plan something closer to home. I can't be the only one thinking that.

And that's a potentially significant economic impact.

So, it's basically win-win for the terrorists. Either we do what they say and they win, or our economy takes one hit after another, and they win.

[katiesue]

What Prudence said.

Also what about the water or Starbucks that I buy inside the "security zone". Can I take that on with me?

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by katiesue

Also what about the water or Starbucks that I buy inside the "security zone". Can I take that on with me?

According to this morning's paper - no. Won't that make runway delays even more fun? you know, the ones where you sit on the tarmac for hours and the airline won't even distribute water and people survive on what they brought themselves?

The new/proposed restrictions wouldn't be so bad if we weren't also at a barebones service model. Not that my comfort should trump security, but if airlines won't provide any comfort, and I will no longer be able to bring my own, I may not fly any more.