'Plot to blow up planes' foiled

pork99

growler wrote:

You seem to think the west is to blame for radicalising these idiots, I blame the idiots and the culture that allows them, even encourages them to blow themselves up in the name of god.

Interesting that out of the 24 current conflicts where religion is a factor listed here 21 involve Muslims. (To be fair though nearly as many, 16, involve Christians)

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

I think,theres no democratic obstacle stopping your fellow country men exchanging a far right neo con with a more liberal democrat...

A compliant press, election fraud, candidates denied ballot access, sparse polling stations in minority districts, dodgy challenges to registered voters, electronic voting machines, dissenting political groups infiltrated...etc etc

Dont care what they say to be honest,they are of little worth in my opinion,I've made my mind up on the drivers of Alqueda.
speaking to moderates is the way to go.

So we are supposed to just accept that the "foiled plot" was just that and not keep an open mind. It's all like the government(s) told us:

They hate our freedom
they will stop at nothing to kill us and make us convert to their religion
Menezes was a suicide bomber
There was a Ricin plot
Saddam had wmd and was in cohorts with Al Qaeda
Richard Reid was a dangerous and effective terrorist
Moussawi was important and effective part of the 911 plot
7/7 has nothing to do with Iraq
There was reliable intelligence for Forest Gate and the guy that was shot was really scary boo!
etc etc etc

Dirk Gently

Did any of you hear anything about an attempted hijacking of a plane in Saudi Arabia yesterday? It got a brief mention on sky news yesterday as a breaking story. It seemed to be linked to what was happening in the UK. I was expecting to hear more about it but I can't find anything.

Anyone hear anything about it and if it was connected to the plot in the UK?

sovtek

metrovelvet wrote:

Look. I cannot be objective about this. I live in NYC and at the moment am very very frightened.

That's the intended effect it would seem to me. Now stand behind Bush unquestioningly whilst he protects us from the evil brown men.

sovtek

growler wrote:

or Spain

or Bali

or Egypt

or Morocco

or Kenya

or Chechnya

or Russia

and the planned attack on Germany, Canada etc.


You seem to think the west is to blame for radicalising these idiots, I blame the idiots and the culture that allows them, even encourages them to blow themselves up in the name of god.

Yeah really...lets invade that hive of islamic fundamentalism and western hate...lets show the Spanish what for

Nuttzz

sovtek wrote:

That's the intended effect it would seem to me. Now stand behind Bush unquestioningly whilst he protects us from the evil brown men.

would these be the same ones losing their rag over a few cartoons

tba

*** BA Announcement ***

Until further notice BA has halted all flights from the UK.

BA announced: "I aint getting on no god damn plane you crazy fool!"

Trode

sovtek wrote:

So we are supposed to just accept that the "foiled plot" was just that and not keep an open mind. It's all like the government(s) told us:

They hate our freedom
they will stop at nothing to kill us and make us convert to their religion
Menezes was a suicide bomber
There was a Ricin plot
Saddam had wmd and was in cohorts with Al Qaeda
Richard Reid was a dangerous and effective terrorist
Moussawi was important and effective part of the 911 plot
7/7 has nothing to do with Iraq
There was reliable intelligence for Forest Gate and the guy that was shot was really scary boo!
etc etc etc

Assuming they're lying until proven otherwise is keeping an open mind? Or does "Government mounts huge scam operation, shutting down airports and costing millions to themselves and business, managing to keep the fact that it's all a lie secret, just to provoke some vague fear in their citizens and make themselves less popular" rank higher on the probability scale than "Police stop crime" in your 'open mind'?

Incidentally, the UK government, for all it's sins, never made most of those claims.

RedPlanet

Trode wrote:

Assuming they're lying until proven otherwise is keeping an open mind? Or does "Government mounts huge scam operation, shutting down airports and costing millions to themselves and business, managing to keep the fact that it's all a lie secret, just to provoke some vague fear in their citizens and make themselves less popular" rank higher on the probability scale than "Police stop crime" in your 'open mind'?

Incidentally, the UK government, for all it's sins, never made most of those claims.

Nobody has pointblank said the governments are lying about this.
Rather, that there is an alledged conspiracy to blow up planes.
The conspiracy is not fact, it has not been proven and those detained (arrested?) are suspects whom are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

It has just been spinning some scare tactic (they literally used the word "scary") that 81% of British Muslims see themselves firstly as Muslim and secondly as British people.
Now I'm no expert on theology, but I dont think that many Catholic, Sikh, Hindu or Baptist would identify their loyalties as being with the government before being with God.

FWIW, there would be some historical parallels in the suspicion that Catholics owed an allegience to the Pope that made them unreliable citizens - a view acknowledged in the old Unionist slogan 'Home Rule is Rome Rule'. However, where the parallel is not identical, as Irish nationality was the mobilising force more than religion. Indeed, militant republicans have shown themselves willing to ignore both threats and pleas based on religion.

I cannot argue with your essential perspective. I have no doubt that young Muslims might well find the image of terrorist violence attractive and powerful, in the way that many Irish teenagers would have flirted and posed with the attractiveness of IRA violence. It reminds me of that remark of Micheal Herr's reflecting on his time as a war correspondent that "Vietnam was what we had instead of happy childhoods".

Clearly we have to cut away the ground that supports terrorism, or makes it an appealing lifestyle. However, it seems too theoretical to me to suggest that European born Muslims, who seem to be reported as being largely of Pakistani descent, are motivated to act by the invasion of Iraq. That might be their stated cause, but their motivation must be something that comes from their own lives. In the same way, a skanger might barrel on about British imperialism being his motivation for rioting to prevent Northern Unionists from parading in Dublin. But we can probably guess that he's simply using the parade as an opportunity to express an otherwise shapeless sense of general resentment and emptiness.

Have we any picture of what's missing from the lives of young Muslims that makes them want to fill it with these experiences? I'm not confident we'll make much progress until we can answer that question.

Cardinal

RedPlanet wrote:

"Rather, that there is an alledged conspiracy to blow up planes.
The conspiracy is not fact, it has not been proven and those detained (arrested?) are suspects whom are to be considered innocent until proven guilty."

Hear, hear. It's amazing that people cry that the goverment's lying ever before it even tells us anything.

The_Scary_Man

Trode wrote:

Assuming they're lying until proven otherwise is keeping an open mind? Or does "Government mounts huge scam operation, shutting down airports and costing millions to themselves and business, managing to keep the fact that it's all a lie secret, just to provoke some vague fear in their citizens and make themselves less popular" rank higher on the probability scale than "Police stop crime" in your 'open mind'?

Incidentally, the UK government, for all it's sins, never made most of those claims.

If assuming they are lying until proven otherwise isn't keeping an open mind then surely assuming they are telling the truth until it is proven otherwise is equally close-minded.

If you want to debate the points then debate them. You have taken what Sovtek said, twisted it, exaggerated it and then compared with your own clear and succint version of the truth. People have the right to be sceptical in the aftermath of the incidents the Sovtek listed.

You also say that the british government never made most of these claims if you could single out the ones you are referring too then maybe a debate could occur.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

A compliant press, election fraud, candidates denied ballot access, sparse polling stations in minority districts, dodgy challenges to registered voters, electronic voting machines, dissenting political groups infiltrated...etc etc

Are you sure its not Northern Ireland you're talking about?
Anyway most of the things on your list reflect badly on political opponents not checking those things prior to a ballot rather than reflect on the democracy itself.

So we are supposed to just accept that the "foiled plot" was just that and not keep an open mind.

Now sovtek when did you ever keep an open mind in your postings on this board regarding most things...You come here with an opinion like most people and you are entitled to it.

Cardinal

The_Scary_Man wrote:

If assuming they are lying until proven otherwise isn't keeping an open mind then surely assuming they are telling the truth until it is proven otherwise is equally close-minded.

Yes, both are equally close-minded. Jumping to either conclusion before it can be proven and with no evidence of your own in close-minded. Is it really so hard to take either side, until more is known?

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote:

No offence, but if you're even asking this question you really need to get informed about this stuff.
Re read Flukeys previous post. The line "Al Q'aida doesn't exist as such" is the pertinent bit. Read more background.

I read Flukey's post. And I am in the media capital of the US so Im hearing A LOT of different things and I cant make sense of any of them. So dont patronise me for being confused.

Also unlike any of the people sitting in Ireland behind their keyboards I am living with the threat of being blown to bits in a subway or airline.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

Also unlike any of the people sitting in Ireland behind their keyboards I am living with the threat of being blown to bits in a subway or airline.

Your also living with the threat of being blown to bits by a metor striking the earth, which statisically speaking is more likely.

Wibbs was referring to ignoring the current stories and actually read up on Hezbollah. To even suggest it is them is laughable if your familar with the history of the organisation. For example did you know that Hezbollah actually comdemend 9/11 as AQ where using civilians as targets. They tend to target military.

Only time they have started targetting civilian areas is with the recent incursion by Israel and that was only in tit-for-tat response of Israel bombing cities of civilians.

metrovelvet

YEs well Hobbes we are talking about NOW, which is after this recent ME crisis. Whatever happened in 911 was before that. Whatever comments they made then do not apply now.

Well, let me tell you a lot of people here are saying its Hezbollah. Excuse me for asking a question. I didnt realise it was a punnishable offence.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

YEs well Hobbes we are talking about NOW, which is after this recent ME crisis. Whatever happened in 911 was before that. Whatever comments they made then do not apply now.

Actually history matters a lot. No idea why you would think otherwise.

For example Hezbollah have never attacked outside the borders of Lebanon (exception Israel), they have never intentionally hit civilian areas except in tit-for-tat.

What conclusion has brought you to think this attempted attack was done by them?

Well, let me tell you a lot of people here are saying its Hezbollah.

Please feel free to quote even one of them. I can't see anyone.

growler

Hobbes wrote:

For example Hezbollah ................they have never intentionally hit civilian areas except in tit-for-tat.

.

more tat-for -tit , than the reactive justification you seem to imply.

Trode

The_Scary_Man wrote:

If assuming they are lying until proven otherwise isn't keeping an open mind then surely assuming they are telling the truth until it is proven otherwise is equally close-minded.

If you want to debate the points then debate them. You have taken what Sovtek said, twisted it, exaggerated it and then compared with your own clear and succint version of the truth. People have the right to be sceptical in the aftermath of the incidents the Sovtek listed.

Wait, I did what? Sovtek said that believing the governments version of events was not open-minded, so I asked if not believing them was. I then asked which version he thought more likely, given that, in the absence of proof either way, it seems logical to go with the least unlikely one. If the evidence changes which one that is, than it's all to the good. I didn't even give my clear and succint version of the truth. I'm not denying anyone their right to scepticism.

You also say that the british government never made most of these claims if you could single out the ones you are referring too then maybe a debate could occur.

Well, the British government never claimed that Menenzes was a suicide bomber(some police officers made and incorrect snap decision based on incompetent surveillance, but he was never accused of anything) or that Richard Reid was effective(although exploding shoes puts him in the dangerous category). I don't think they've actually commented on Moussaoui 's level of involvement one way or the other, though they did hand over their information on him to the Americans after Sept 11, that was on request. They didn't categorically say that 7/7 wasn't connected to Iraq, Blair said Iraq was no excuse for terrorism, which implies they acknowledge some level of causality.Finally, I doubt they said the 'kill us and convert us' thing. I'm open to correction here(as with all of the above statements), but in general British statements on these things tend to be more sensitive to ordinary Muslims, and talk of inclusion and uniting against terror rather than Bush's 'Us or Them' rhteoric.

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

Your also living with the threat of being blown to bits by a metor striking the earth, which statisically speaking is more likely. .

Actually, here in NYC, people got blown to bits already when two jets crashed into two skyscrapers. It has happened, whereas being blown to bits by a meteor hasnt. So me thinks one is more likely than the other.

Hobbes wrote:

Please feel free to quote even one of them. I can't see anyone..

I cant either - thats why Im asking. Argh!!! La gente parla ... la gente parla... you know?

sovtek

Cardinal wrote:

Yes, both are equally close-minded. Jumping to either conclusion before it can be proven and with no evidence of your own in close-minded. Is it really so hard to take either side, until more is known?

Do i really need to say this.
These same people have lied before and I do not believe them until they show some pretty convincing evidence first.
I do know that there are people seeking to attack in the UK and US and targets relating to such elsewhere in the world.
I too fear being a victim...but I do not only blame the people that might carry out such attacks but their instigators as well...namely the Bush and Blair regime.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

Actually, here in NYC, people got blown to bits already when two jets crashed into two skyscrapers. It has happened, whereas being blown to bits by a meteor hasnt. So me thinks one is more likely than the other.

2,819 people died in 2001.

approx 450,000 die each year in the US from Heart Disease.
approx just under 500,000 die each year in the US from cancer.

Theres a little perspective for you. Your more likely to die crossing the road then dying in a terrorist attack.

Could you die in a terrorist attack? Its possible but so unlikely that you may as well worry about Meteor strikes, alien invasions or simply taking too many advil.

Even air travel is statisically safer despite everything that has happened to date.

Btw, people in Ireland have lived longer under the threat of terrorist attacks. You can learn a lot from the attitudes and history of it was dealt with here.

I cant either - thats why Im asking. Argh!!! La gente parla ... la gente parla... you know?

You said "people here" (thread? or here as in US) are blaming Hezbollah for it. I have seen absolutly no reference to this at all.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Are you sure its not Northern Ireland you're talking about?
Anyway most of the things on your list reflect badly on political opponents not checking those things prior to a ballot rather than reflect on the democracy itself.

Let me get this straight...tampering with elections is the fault of the political opponents of the people carrying out the tampering?

Now sovtek when did you ever keep an open mind in your postings on this board regarding most things...You come here with an opinion like most people and you are entitled to it.

That was in response to your "I've made my mind up" comment.

ismynametoolong

Its quite simple really the blame lies firmly at the feet of George W and the alledged millions that voted for him !

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

Also unlike any of the people sitting in Ireland behind their keyboards I am living with the threat of being blown to bits in a subway or airline.

Irish people have a lot of experience with living with 30 years of sustained terrorism and also have seen for ourselves what actions increase support for terrorism and what actions isolate the terrorists making them ineffective so I don't think an Irish opinion on your situation should be dismissed so easily.

I can understand the emotion and the fear you feel and why you might want to lash out but to reduce the threat of a terrorist attack America must address the reasons why Terrorists want to attack. Remember that many innocent Muslims in the middle east live in fear of American bombs been dropped on them every day. It's not hard to see why they might want to hit back. You live in fear of an attack while they are on the recieving end of American attacks every day.

Be careful of easy labels being thrown on the latest alledged terrorists such as they are Al Quedia or they are Hezbollah. To label them as such is to ignore the fact more and more British citizens are willing to use terrorist methods were in the past when they weren't seeing innocent Muslims being slaughtered everyday on their T.V. they wouldn't have become terrorists.

metrovelvet

Hobbes wrote:

2,819 people died in 2001.

approx 450,000 die each year in the US from Heart Disease.
approx just under 500,000 die each year in the US from cancer.

Theres a little perspective for you. Your more likely to die crossing the road then dying in a terrorist attack.

Could you die in a terrorist attack? Its possible but so unlikely that you may as well worry about Meteor strikes, alien invasions or simply taking too many advil.

Even air travel is statisically safer despite everything that has happened to date.

Btw, people in Ireland have lived longer under the threat of terrorist attacks. You can learn a lot from the attitudes and history of it was dealt with here.

You said "people here" (thread? or here as in US) are blaming Hezbollah for it. I have seen absolutly no reference to this at all.

No. I didnt say they were blaming Hezbollah... I said there was some talk of it being Hezbollah.

People in Ireland have not dealt with it on the same scale. I can learn alot from the Irish attitudes? lol. Thanks Hobbes. I needed a laugh today.

Ok Im going to spell it out for you, I CANT SEE ANY REFERENCE ANYWHERE EITHER..... its TALK ...THATS WHY IM ASKING.

RedPlanet

Trode wrote:

They didn't categorically say that 7/7 wasn't connected to Iraq, Blair said Iraq was no excuse for terrorism, which implies they acknowledge some level of causality.Finally, I doubt they said the 'kill us and convert us' thing. I'm open to correction here(as with all of the above statements), but in general British statements on these things tend to be more sensitive to ordinary Muslims, and talk of inclusion and uniting against terror rather than Bush's 'Us or Them' rhteoric.

You may (or may not) find this interesting:
In the House of Parliament days after the attack he (Tony Blair) had rejected any link between foreign policy and the threat of terrorism, stating that this was "a form of terrorism aimed at our way of life, not at any particular Government or policy." According to PM's Official Spokesman at a Press Briefing on July 12th, "it was a fact that terrorism of the kind that we had seen in London . . . was a factor before the Iraq war. Therefore it was naive frankly to believe that you could say that this kind of terrorism was due to the Iraq war . . . Therfore to put it down to the Iraq was misplaced." Fast forward a couple of weeks and Blair is now denying that he denied that Iraq had any influence on the bombings!

from: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/war/london/rewrite.html

Heinrich

metrovelvet wrote:

People in Ireland have not dealt with it on the same scale. I can learn alot from the Irish attitudes? lol. Thanks Hobbes. I needed a laugh today.

What an arrogant stance you adopt!

Your fruit basket of a president, along with his english lap dog decide to stage an phoney *war* based on phoney *intelligence* and subsequently change their motives for this *war*!

What they have succeeded in doing is to activate every god damned terrorist organisation on the planet.

Where 9/11 was a terrible disaster it was not orchestrated by Saddam but by a gentleman who was financed by your country.

Here in Ireland we have had 30 years of conflict and there were more bombs let off here than were in your beloved New York.

But I imagine, with your blinkered perspective you obviously do not see things as we do.

You come across as the hypochondriac who moans every time he comes into contact with a genuinely sick person.

metrovelvet

And what did you do about it to stop it in your 30 years of conflict?