'Plot to blow up planes' foiled

sovtek

metrovelvet wrote:

I have never been mugged, raped or hit by a car here. I know how to look after myself.

I have however lost people in 911. Everyone here is connected to someone who has died in that.

You've never been killed or been injured in a terrorist attack either.

sovtek

metrovelvet wrote:

I would agree with that. Irish America has alot to answer for.



Yes but thats not what I said.

I asked before, what does it matter?

Trode

The_Scary_Man wrote:

Ok I take your point that you were trying to demonstrate the fact that logic would point to the simplest answer but you put;

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

against;

Police stop crime

The point was it's not 'close-minded' to accept the most likely answer when there is little to disprove it. If it was a simple 'Oh, by the way, we saved you all from Al-Qaeda today. That is all" at the end of a press conference, I'd be as suspicious as anyone, but I think the amount of effort, damage and potential embarrassment if they're wrong here points fairly firmly to them being at least honest about a threat (without saying whether those arrested are guilty or not).

Sovtek in his previous posts didn't seem to me to be advocating either of these view points but rather asking people to keep an open mind. Asking people to be a little more discerning before swallowing what the government dishes out to us.

Well, he stated that anyone who accepted the second viewpoint didn't have an open mind, even though there is basically no reason not to, except a blanket distrust of the british government. Understandable, but not a platform from which to accuse others of not being open-minded.

The_Scary_Man wrote:

Everything you say here is true. The British govt has taken a back seat in making the kind of accusations and remarks that seem to come all too easily to US politicians. I would say however that press releases are not the governments only mode of disseminating information and while freedom of the press from government intrusion is not as much an issue on this side of the pond as it is in America a belief that the press here is free from state manipulation wouldn't serve us too well. In truth the media are more to blame for these kinds of stories than the UK government but to think that they don't influence these stories and how they are reported would be naive. Sovtek also refers to governments not the british govt making these statements.

I didn't say they don't lie, I said they didn't tell those lies. It was a factual correction rather than an political stand, and as such, whether they influenced the press to make the claims they could not(although I don't recall any paper doing so), is moot. And what the American government may or may not have said on similar issues(I wouldn't expect them to comment on the Menenzes case as it's not their business, just as I wouldn't have expected the British to comment on Moussaoui)is irrelevant. You can't cite a list of statements as proof that a source is unreliable, realise that only one of them really holds water, and conflate it with another list from a different source as proof that they're both unreliable.

I'm sorry if I came over antagonistic, I just get wound up with posts that question the validity of one posters opinion without offering some points of their own to back up their criticism.

Nah, you didn't. I guess what winds me up is people who see disagreement as ignorant refusal to accept 'the truth, maaaan'.

Flukey

metrovelvet wrote:

I have never been mugged, raped or hit by a car here. I know how to look after myself.

I have however lost people in 911. Everyone here is connected to someone who has died in that.

That may all be true, and we sympathise with your losses. But like all of us, I am sure you know far more people that have been mugged, died in traffic accidents, had cancer, heart conditions, and had all sorts of other misfortunes occur to them. I am sure you are worried about terrorist attacks, but put it into perspective and realise that there are far bigger risks to you. That is all that many of us are saying to you. As people always say in these situations, if you worried about all of these things, you'd never move outside of your door, though there are many risks inside your home too.

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

But wasnt that only with US intervention?

You really need to snap out of this little fantasy that the U.S. is the saviour of the world and also that there is no reason for anyone to wish to attack the U.S. except that they are "evil" and "hate your freedom". I really hope your view is not typical of how Americans feel because lack of understanding about the reasons behind terrorism makes stopping terrorism damn near impossible.

The northern peace process was a result of many years of slow hard work by people like the SDLP and other moderates on both sides pressuring the extreme elements to give up the violence. The Irish and British public who were sympathetic to the terrorists needed to be convinced that diplomacy was the way forward and not force met with force. Every attack carried out by British and Irish terrorists and a lot of the time by the British State only hardened peoples attitudes so much that they thought terrorism on their side was justified. Major change came after a period of ceasefire from the terrorists when both the Irish and British governments decided to draw the extremists into the political process and address their concerns. A few photo ops for Bill Clinton was certainly helpful but America didn't just wave a magic wand and make everything alright. If what you are saying is that America sorted out the terrorism problem here in Ireland you are quite wrong. Peace cannot be dictated to people, it can only be won by listening to the concerns of people who oppose you and making an effort to address those concerns. As Margaret Thatcher found out, a war on terror will always create more terrorists and increase the threat to your nation from attack. Maybe if American citizens pressured their Government to stop dropping bombs on innocent Muslims in the middle east then Muslims will pressure extremists not to attack your civilians.

Time to start looking outside that little narrow box if you want to understand the reasons why so many people are determined to attack America. Don't believe all your own propaganda about how America is the great saviour of the world. Often the opposite is true if you as a citizen would just look outside your own boarders and take a look at what your government actually gets up to around the world.

I hope you stay safe, but a change in foreign policy would make you a hell of a lot safer as it would reduce significantly the numbers of people willing to attack you.

Schuhart

Heinrich wrote:

Let's see what he has to add. I don't think it's confusing at all. Just try reading the lines as there is only blank space between them...

Its a confused post, which starts by suggesting the whole terror thing is a ready up and ends by suggesting there is a real threat produced as a response to the actions of the UK and US Governments. It has to be one or the other.

Hobbes

metrovelvet wrote:

I have never been mugged, raped or hit by a car here. I know how to look after myself.

As sovtek pointed out if these haven't happened to you then the chances of a terrorist attack getting you is even lower.

I have however lost people in 911. Everyone here is connected to someone who has died in that.

Do you know anyone who has been injured/died in a car accident? Got Cancer? Heart disease? Heart attack? Mugged?

Wibbs

clown bag wrote:

You really need to snap out of this little fantasy that the U.S. is the saviour of the world and also that there is no reason for anyone to wish to attack the U.S. except that they are "evil" and "hate your freedom". I really hope your view is not typical of how Americans feel because lack of understanding about the reasons behind terrorism makes stopping terrorism damn near impossible.

It's not all Americans obviously, but sadly it's an all too common view among the many Americans I've dealt with especially in the country itself. It's an opinion to be found less so among those who've travelled abroad. Look at immediately post 911. The amount of people in the US who were asking "why us" shows the bewilderment and ignorance as to why it could happen. They must hate our freedom is a frankly stupid response. A response Bush is happy to repeat ad nauseum for the punters.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

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

Not chasing it up is.

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

Yeah sure.

I have an opinion on this so have you.I'll give it to you now for clarity.
I am of the view that there are potential murdering scum in the UK who will stop at nothing to murder innocent men women and children.They've done it before and will do it again if they are not caught.I'm also of the view that the guys investigated in the search for these murdering scum will get due process.

Thats a completely separate view of course to what I have on what has brought them to see a need to murder-But then nobody has the right to blow up the planes,trains and automobiles of innocent people.

These potentially murdering scum of course are the lowest common denominator in murdering scum because (a) they think their God allows them to do this (something anathema to run of the mill Islam) and even worse (b) their targets are 100% people going about their daily lives,they dont even attempt to make it military...
Some war that eh?


{moderator hat on} some posters are getting tetchy with each other because of their views,please dont do this.You can be as emotive as you want within the confines of the charter but please dont attack or get personal with other posters here.
There will be a one month ban for the next instance I see of that.

RedPlanet

I found a reference to the Hezb'Allah allegation at infowars.com
http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/110806Hezbollah.htm
Some right-winger guest spewing his mouth off it seems.

fly_agaric

Sovtek wrote:

Speaking of drivel

Ah now! I thought it was quite funny. I always try to please.

Sovtek wrote:

I'm not talking about what other people are posting.

I don't know if you believe, or have posted to promote Sept. 11th conspiracy theories since I'm not patient enough with the crappy search feature.
I do know that some people on this thread who would immediately mistrust the UK govt. and police statements have made such posts because I recall it from my own mental search feature.

Sovtek wrote:

So you'd rather listen to people that have consistantly lied to you and make up your mind on what they claim rather than demand evidence before hand?

Assuming we are talking about the UK here...

The only time [in the events under discussion here] that the UK govt. certainly distorted the truth to promote an agenda IMO was Iraq.
I don't see malice by them or the police (apart from initial CYA reactions) in any of their security cock-ups [shooting of De Menezes, utterly pointless raid on the house in which a person got shot].
So yes. I'll accept what they are saying until I have evidence to believe otherwise [for example - they attempt to bring these men to trial and can't make anything stick/evidence gets taken apart].

Sovtek wrote:

They also stressed how we MUST invade Iraq...etc etc

True.
But waging a preemptive war and unleashing death and destruction based either on alot of incorrect suppositions or distortions is an entirely different thing to making arrests to thwart a terrorist attack and upping security.

Sovtek wrote:

there was no "Ricin plot".

AFAIK, there was a plot of sorts - but it was very incompetent and stupid too!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4433459.stm

Sovtek wrote:

I wish I was a violin virtuoso

Some people will have the skill, dedication, and luck to make their dreams come true. Same goes for terrorists.

Schuhart

Wibbs wrote:

The amount of people in the US who were asking "why us" shows the bewilderment and ignorance as to why it could happen. They must hate our freedom is a frankly stupid response. A response Bush is happy to repeat ad nauseum for the punters.

Yes, Bush is a gob****e. Yes, he was elected to office by the US electorate for a second term, who surely knew who they were voting for.

But the line that leads from, say, the Iraq war to a British convert to Islam taking part in an attempt to blow up transatlantic airliners is fairly tenous. It is hardly a normal response to anything, let alone US policy.

I think there is a need to reflect before taking the line that terrorist actions are a natural outcome of Iraq/US policy. The Iraq war is wrong from many perspectives. But if a group of UK nationals have some twisted vision of the world that makes them see the US as the root of all evil, the way that craw thumping Irish Republicans used to go on about Britain, and see themselves as having a sacred duty to take a load of people down in flames with them ...

Is that really a situation that you respond to by saying to Americans 'you brought it all on yourselves'. There own 'hate freedom' interpretation is pretty dumb. But the people doing this kind of thing are religious nuts with a bizarre view of the world. I think that needs to be more clearly digested.

The_Scary_Man

Trode wrote:

The point was it's not 'close-minded' to accept the most likely answer when there is little to disprove it. If it was a simple 'Oh, by the way, we saved you all from Al-Qaeda today. That is all" at the end of a press conference, I'd be as suspicious as anyone, but I think the amount of effort, damage and potential embarrassment if they're wrong here points fairly firmly to them being at least honest about a threat (without saying whether those arrested are guilty or not).

I can see your point and I don't claim to have all the facts but all my concern is the level of the threat. Was it really a major terror attack about to happen within days or was it a bunch of no hopers talking themselves up in chat rooms?

You would think that in the aftermath of Forest Gate that they would be extra vigilant when it comes to checking their facts and it could very well turn out that they have and this is all above board. I have never said that there is no threat, I'm just saying don't swallow the story whole.

Well, he stated that anyone who accepted the second viewpoint didn't have an open mind, even though there is basically no reason not to, except a blanket distrust of the british government. Understandable, but not a platform from which to accuse others of not being open-minded.

Thats not what he said, what he said was "So we are supposed to just accept that the "foiled plot" was just that and not keep an open mind". Thats not the same at all as saying that anyone who accepted the second viewpoint didn't have an open mind. Even if he did say it, to accept any idea unquestioningly is close-minded and dangerous.

I didn't say they don't lie, I said they didn't tell those lies. It was a factual correction rather than an political stand, and as such, whether they influenced the press to make the claims they could not(although I don't recall any paper doing so), is moot. And what the American government may or may not have said on similar issues(I wouldn't expect them to comment on the Menenzes case as it's not their business, just as I wouldn't have expected the British to comment on Moussaoui)is irrelevant. You can't cite a list of statements as proof that a source is unreliable, realise that only one of them really holds water, and conflate it with another list from a different source as proof that they're both unreliable.

Nah, you didn't. I guess what winds me up is people who see disagreement as ignorant refusal to accept 'the truth, maaaan'.

I wasn't disagreeing with you on this point just pointing out the fact that we can't rate the validity of any information on the basis of its source. Just because the police said it doesn't make it any more inherently true or valid.

I'm quite prepared to be wrong and I'll hold my hands up and admit it but it won't stop me asking questions about the next incident or the next after that.

Wibbs

Yep a good solid source alright. Nuttier than squirrel sh1t with most of his rant.

Hobbes wrote:

Do you know anyone who has been injured/died in a car accident? Got Cancer? Heart disease? Heart attack? Mugged?

Exactly. In fairness a lot of people are guilty of that thinking. Fear of flying is a classic.

In many ways Americans have been sheltered geographically from the worst of terrorist actions and war(regardless of if you think they had some part to play in the roots of it). While Americans have been targeted abroad long before 911, the attack on the homeland seemed a distant threat. In fact the very notion that there were many places in the world pre 911 where US citizens weren't safe surprises me at their surprise when it finally happened on their patch. The reaction wasn't a surprise though. The mindset of Pearl harbo(u)r is a strong one.

sovtek

Trode wrote:

Well, he stated that anyone who accepted the second viewpoint didn't have an open mind, even though there is basically no reason not to, except a blanket distrust of the british government. Understandable, but not a platform from which to accuse others of not being open-minded.

Again I did not say that at all.

Flukey

fly_agaric wrote:

[for example - they attempt to bring these men to trial and can't make anything stick/evidence gets taken apart].

Little details like evidence don't get in the way. Birmingham Six, Guildford Four, being the two examples we would be most familiar with. There are far more too. In Ireland we have plenty of examples. Just mention Donegal and what has gone on there in recent years. Nicky Kelly is another example. What happened to Dean Lyons is on the news again today. Even evidence and proof isn't always evidence and proof, if you see what I mean. Being found guilty of a crime doesn't actually mean that you are guilty. So what can we believe?

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

But the line that leads from, say, the Iraq war to a British convert to Islam taking part in an attempt to blow up transatlantic airliners is fairly tenous. It is hardly a normal response to anything, let alone US policy../..Is that really a situation that you respond to by saying to Americans 'you brought it all on yourselves'. There own 'hate freedom' interpretation is pretty dumb. But the people doing this kind of thing are religious nuts with a bizarre view of the world. I think that needs to be more clearly digested.

Oh I agree with you. From the outside it's hard to pick apart who is dumber. Both have a heartly bizarre view of the world and IMHO it's not just the extremists on both sides either. If it was just the "nutters" this wouldn't be so serious. Both too many "average" Americans and too many "average" Muslims, share the views and support to a lesser or greater extent the ideals of the "nutters", even if it's only in the general idea, not the details. Most Americans don't want to see women and kids blown up. Most Muslims don't want the same. Doesn't stop both sides getting enough tacit support to allow it to happen though, even though many on both sides protest when it does.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

Not chasing it up is.

True in the Democrats case...untrue as far as othe political opponents go. Anyway it furthers my argument that they are increasingly undermining democracy.

sovtek

fly_agaric wrote:

Some people will have the skill, dedication, and luck to make their dreams come true. Same goes for terrorists.

...obviously the two people I mentioned didn't have what it takes.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

True in the Democrats case...untrue as far as othe political opponents go. Anyway it furthers my argument that they are increasingly undermining democracy.

Well if you are talking about the republicans,I wont disagree.Though,personation and fraud should really be chased up.It happens here too

Flukey wrote:

That may all be true, and we sympathise with your losses. But like all of us, I am sure you know far more people that have been mugged, died in traffic accidents, had cancer, heart conditions, and had all sorts of other misfortunes occur to them. I am sure you are worried about terrorist attacks, but put it into perspective and realise that there are far bigger risks to you. That is all that many of us are saying to you. As people always say in these situations, if you worried about all of these things, you'd never move outside of your door, though there are many risks inside your home too.

Just to comment on that.

Death by Terrorism is murder,its something physically visited via extreme wrong doing by one person/group on another.
Theres no parallel whatsoever between death by murder and death by natural causes
I realise ye are talking about the statistics of death but I think its only fair to point out that the two are not the same.

Flukey

All of this goes long, long before Iraq. We are talking decades. Iraq is one of the most recent of a long line of things done in the Middle East by the west. As for American foreign policy, its negative influences extend well beyond the Middle East. I haven't got it to hand, but there is a list of about 27 countries that America has invaded since the second world war, and many times, in a contradiction of what they are telling us they are trying to do now, they have removed democratic governments and installed and supported dictators, vicious ones at that. General Pinochet in Chile being one of the best examples.

sovtek

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't know if you believe, or have posted to promote Sept. 11th conspiracy theories since I'm not patient enough with the crappy search feature.
I do know that some people on this thread who would immediately mistrust the UK govt. and police statements have made such posts because I recall it from my own mental search feature.

by definition 911 was a conspiracy.

Assuming we are talking about the UK here...

The only time [in the events under discussion here] that the UK govt. certainly distorted the truth to promote an agenda IMO was Iraq.
I don't see malice by them or the police (apart from initial CYA reactions) in any of their security cock-ups [shooting of De Menezes, utterly pointless raid on the house in which a person got shot].
So yes. I'll accept what they are saying until I have evidence to believe otherwise [for example - they attempt to bring these men to trial and can't make anything stick/evidence gets taken apart].

Obviously you are welcome to that viewpoint.
I on the other hand have witnessed many examples of incompetance and dishonesty over the years to be sceptical until such time as they produce evidence.

True.
But waging a preemptive war and unleashing death and destruction based either on alot of incorrect suppositions or distortions is an entirely different thing to making arrests to thwart a terrorist attack and upping security.

Maybe but not if you are tying it in with the need for such a war.

AFAIK, there was a plot of sorts - but it was very incompetent and stupid too!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4433459.stm

Welll being that they were all aquitted then who actually concocted the plot besides the police and prosecution?

8 Apr: Sihali, Khalef, Feddag and Taleb are acquitted of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance in relation to the ricin plot. Bourgass is convicted of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. Sihali and Khalef are convicted of possessing false passports.

12 Apr: The jury is discharged after failing to reach a verdict on the second count against Bourgass - conspiracy to commit murder.

Flukey

Earthman wrote:

Death by Terrorism is murder,its something physically visited via extreme wrong doing by one person/group on another.
Theres no parallel whatsoever between death by murder and death by natural causes

I realise ye are talking about the statistics of death but I think its only fair to point out that the two are not the same.

Fair enough then Earthman. If we then compare death by terrorism in terms of inflicted and received by America and other western powers, the 3000 in New York are but a drop in the ocean. Not one of those was justified, and I am not doing so, but if we are going to compare figures there are more deaths in the Middle East.

If you are on the ground in Iraq and a bomb drops down on your home, you are not going to check who did it before deciding if it was terrorism or not. The fact that it was dropped by someone wearing a uniform makes no difference to the casualties. It is not who is doing it, but the act itself that is terrorism. Those on the ground being bombed by western forces are experiencing great terror, no less than anyone traditionally regarded as victims of terrorism.

As I said in the post I just put up, this goes back a long way. 9/11 was in no way justifiable, but by waiting until 2001 to inflict the first casualties on American soil, after decades on the receiving end, some people would say that they were very restrained. I condemn the lot of it. We have to be real in our analysis of why it is happening and the roots and reasons for it. "They hate our freedom" and other such lines have absolutely nothing to do with it, as most of us know.

mike65

I get the feeling there is a cohort in life and on boards which won't belive what they are told until they look up and see a plane explode. At which point they get on-line and condem incompetent intelligence, then they die as the debris hits the house.

Mike.

Flukey

In fairness Mike Intelligence in that context has often been a misnomer. It is not a simple business of course.

Imposter

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

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

Flukey

I've seen that suggested too, that we are given an anaesthetic for the duration of our flights.

mike65

In fairness Mike Intelligence in that context has often been a misnomer. It is not a simple business of course

Well in this case the info gathering in Pakistan seems (again) to be good and acted upon. Part of the problem with skepics is if MI5 or wheover says nothing about a foiled plot then its assumed nothing happened, when they do make stuff public they are accused of speading fear for politcal reasons. I just hope they have the evidence to make everything stick fully,

I was watching a Muslim woman (not sure which organisation she belonged to) on Sky News saying she hoped it was all a mistake. I hope its all true.

Mike.

Flukey

Let's hope none of it is true. In the meantime though, we are all to be incovenienced even more when flying, which is a sort of victory for those that want to bring terror.

New_Departure06

growler wrote:

or Spain

Involved in Iraq.

or Bali

Targeting Australian tourists as Australia is involved in Iraq.

or Egypt

Targeting Israeli tourists.

or Morocco

Fair point but in general the attacks are on those countries or people of a nationality whose leaders collude either in bombings of Muslim countries or cow-towing to Israel.

or Kenya

Ditto.

or Chechnya

or Russia

Well the Russian genocide in Chechnya might have more to do with that.

and the planned attack on Germany, Canada etc.

Germany feels it has to be nice to Israel because of war-guilt and to avoid the charge of anti-semitism given its role in the Holocaust. Hence it tends to parrot Israel's views which obviously doesn't make it popular in the Muslim world. Regarding Canada, I could refer to Harper's support for Israel's "measured" military action. :eek:

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.

I mainly blame the US and Israel for creating a problem of Islamic terrorism that was absent before 1948. Not making excuses here just telling you that while I hate terrorism with a passion I also hate Israeli imperialism. Israel is the cause of most of this radicalisation but its brutalisation of the Palestinians and its excessive use of force against its neighbours since the 80's. Think of how we would feel if British bombs were raining down on Irish cities, including bridges, roads, residential areas, water-supplies and power-stations and the British refused to let humanitarian aid in. I'd say we'd be extremely angry. Israel have obviously never heard of the Geneva Convention.