4 Comments »

1. Being as previous terrorist targets have been civilan ones, I wonder if the rest of the UK will get the same sort of protection ? Seems that the politicians are willing to make the decisions that put us at risk but are unwilling to to suffer the consequenses like the rest of us will ultimately have to.

   Comment by Tony — 24 Mar 2004 on 10:28 pm | Link

2. The Pentagon a civilian target? Don’t think so, and Flight 93 is believed to have been heading for the US Capitol. Believe me, as one who works in Parliament, it is a very likely target and security can easily be tightened without damaging public access. Incidentally MPs use tubes, trains, buses, etc. and all the other potential ‘civilian targets’ you might be thinking of.

   Comment by David Boothroyd — 24 Mar 2004 on 11:11 pm | Link

3. "changing nature of the threat was a reality for all democracies"

   When the western powers attack Afganistan/Iraq whatever, its not an attack on Arabs, but specific targets. But when they attack anything in the west, it is "an attack on democracy"???

   It is not an attack on democracy, it is an attack on the people they see as attacking them.

   Sweden hasn’t been involved in a conflict since the 1840’s, and the notion that because they are a democracy they are a threat from terrorism is laughable.

   Comment by Lodjer — 25 Mar 2004 on 4:23 pm | Link

4. Its all a smoke screen

   When the IRA were bombing London we had none of this excessive security and lots of people were killed and injured.

   I was not too far from a letterbox bomb, I have stopped a train and jumped off because somebody go on – left a bag – and got off. The train started out of the station – I pulled the cord and jumped….longer story and it gets worse….

   The threat then was more real, immediate and tangible but people understood that you don’t suppress terror by overt measures.

   I go back to my soap box – 10 peole die each day on the roads, 100s are injured.

   No amount of overt security is going to stop terrorist action. It doesn’t scare terrorists, it doesn’t fool me and my mates – unfortunately it must be fooling someone or why would TB bother?

   Oh yeh!- I remember – being a president at war gets you re-elected.

   It would be really great if we could have the main media channels slamming the government on their risk assesment calculations.

   Then we could return to a real world and address issues like road safety 😉 schools, hospitals, police, crime … yawn… zzzzz

   sorry – I’m off my soap box now – you can wake up again 🙂

   Comment by Roger Huffadine — 25 Mar 2004 on 7:01 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.