'Plot to blow up planes' foiled

Flukey

Flukey wrote:

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.

Who wants to compare figures anyway ?
Going back to the comparison between the risk of death by heart disease versus the risk of death by terrorism and working that into the debate again-practically Everybody on a micro scale in life looks after their own patch before looking after others.Thats what we are seeing on a macro scale too in terms of who favours certain wars and who doesnt and who highlights certain civilian deaths and who doesnt.You should be checking (and are likely to be) and dealing with your own cholesterol level and that of your friends and family before that of random strangers.

Your own patch on a macro level could be your country if you are its government or your religion/belief structure in both the case of a government/group or in micro terms that of the individual

Flukey

We've all got to go some way. Many would prefer to go in an instant, like in an accident or a terrorist attack, rather than lying in a bed dying for months and conscious of it.

InFront

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.

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 ...

I dont think anybody places the blame of terrorist attacks on anybody but suicide bombers and their supporters. But a very basic question: why is there not even a hint of extremist actions here, but there are terrorist attacks less than an hour away in London? Do we not have enough Muslims yet? Do Irish people get on better with Muslims? of course not. It has an undeniable link to foreign policy.

Can anybody name one single terrorist attack that occured outside of the Middle East where the location and or timing was not related the government policy?. There isnt one.
9-11: Americans, Bali: Australian holidaymakers (govt supported Iraq);Spain: Spanish government supported Iraq; July 7 London: Britons (govt key force in war 'on' terror.

It goes to show that this is not a religous war, it is a political war on western powers that seeks to perpetuate its cause deceitfully and cruelly by claiming as its own the religion of Islam.

I believe these young, working class Muslim men (boys) are falling for the cause because it gives them significance,a purpose. They have romanticised it. It is self-deception.
Muslims (in general, not everyone) tends to hold what they may still consider the homeland (often the parents' homeland), in high regard and with admiration.
There is a strong sense of community, indeed within the wider Muslim community, a common faith, similiar cultures, languages, social trends, etc.
Murder of innocent Muslims, then, in the ME, inspires these 'wanderers' on the fringes of society, it draws them toward the web of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Now if you can stop that happening on a global basis, you've just eradicated terrorism. It can be the only real answer. There is work that needs to start happening on an economic level and at the level of the community here, be it in Lahore or London or Los Angeles, and that is a genuine war on terror, but something we have heard nothing about.

Georg Bush's hardline, swaggering, tough spittin' attitude and remarks of "Islamofascism" is doing abolsutely nothing but antagonising those whom he seeks to convince, and instead impressing his own people. Does anybody, anybody at all here, think that if we keep bombing the middle east to bits we will eradicate terrorism? Show of hands.

Hobbes

InFront wrote:

why is there not even a hint of extremist actions here, but there are terrorist attacks less than an hour away in London?

You miss the news report today that Real IRA said they planted devices on one of the train tracks?

earthman wrote:

Going back to the comparison between the risk of death by heart disease versus the risk of death by terrorism and working that into the debate again-practically Everybody on a micro scale in life looks after their own patch before looking after others.

Well that isn't what I was talking about. What I was trying to point out is that some people really need to adjust thier perspective on life. There are a million things that can kill you day to day. Better to worry about things that are more likely to kill you.

US media + administration seem intent on keeping thier population scared with various scares, terrorists, bird flu, anthrax, etc.

mike65

More Americans die getting in/out of the bath/shower than abroad in terrorist actions

Mike.

Trode

The_Scary_Man wrote:

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.

Sovtek wrote:

Again I did not say that at all.

Sorry, I'm parsing that sentence completely wrong so. It seemed like the second clause("not keep an open mind") was a follow-on from the first("accept that the "foiled plot" is just that"). As in they are one and the same.

I think the problem is where I say 'accept' you read 'accept unquestioningly'. I'm not saying and never have said anyone should 'swallow the story whole' and leave it at that, I'm saying there's nothing wrong with accepting (what I see as) the more apparently likely explanation unless proven otherwise. You and others seem to be saying don't accept this explanation until it's been proven beyond doubt. I don't think it ever will be.

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.

How else do you rate the validity of information? Or at least, new information?
Obviously the source doesn't affect the truth of the information itself, but if you don't know this truth, then the source of the information is all you've got. Who would you believe more, BBC or Fox News?

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I dont think anybody places the blame of terrorist attacks on anybody but suicide bombers and their supporters. But a very basic question: why is there not even a hint of extremist actions here, but there are terrorist attacks less than an hour away in London? Do we not have enough Muslims yet? Do Irish people get on better with Muslims? of course not. It has an undeniable link to foreign policy.

That is a useful point. I suppose we might have a general concern that use of Shannon puts us potentially in the frame, but we have fudged enough so that plenty of other places would be targets before anyone gets too worried about a refuelling stop. I think its just necessary for us to keep high in our minds that ‘link to foreign policy’ is not the same as saying that this is a natural and normal response to foreign policy. I don’t think we have any disagreement on that – like the IRA campaign in its time, the current wave of terrorism just makes it harder for reasonable people to speak out about an unreasonable situation.

InFront wrote:

I believe these young, working class Muslim men (boys) are falling for the cause because it gives them significance,a purpose. They have romanticised it. It is self-deception.

That rings true. I suppose the question is really what might give them a sense of purpose that would take them in another direction. It’s a question of what’s the real source of their grievance, because I doubt that its in the White House.

InFront wrote:

Georg Bush's hardline, swaggering, tough spittin' attitude and remarks of "Islamofascism" is doing abolsutely nothing but antagonising those whom he seeks to convince, and instead impressing his own people. Does anybody, anybody at all here, think that if we keep bombing the middle east to bits we will eradicate terrorism? Show of hands.

Clearly not, and Bush’s rhetoric can only serve to make Western Moslems wonder what happened to all that stuff about freedom to practice the religion of your choice. Inevitably, there will be tension if law enforcement agencies have to focus on a particular community. Again, we can look to our own experience considering the ways that Irish people had to put up with scrutiny in the UK because of the IRA. If it’s at least done with basic courtesy then reasonable people will tolerate it. It’s not as if the IRA had many recruits with Devon accents. But its never a comfortable situation, and political leaders should have more sense than to make grandstanding comments.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

You miss the news report today that Real IRA said they planted devices on one of the train tracks?

Well I figure he was going on about irish jihadis, but I missed that one myself Hobbes. Bloody hell I wish those muppets would give us all a break. Go home. It's over. Sheesh.

Well that isn't what I was talking about. What I was trying to point out is that some people really need to adjust thier perspective on life. There are a million things that can kill you day to day. Better to worry about things that are more likely to kill you.

Exactly. I'm doin' my part by smoking. Balance up the stats and all that.

US media + administration seem intent on keeping thier population scared with various scares, terrorists, bird flu, anthrax, etc.

Their media is a joke in that respect. You could add to that health scares, crime scares etc etc. It's a population marbled through with fear. Hey religions have found fear works so I'm not surprised governments use it.

Schuhart wrote:

I suppose the question is really what might give them a sense of purpose that would take them in another direction. It’s a question of what’s the real source of their grievance, because I doubt that its in the White House.

I agree with you here. It's not just the white house. That's too easy an answer. It's not just poverty or lack of education either. Many of these fools are educated and middle class.

Pa ElGrande

Former NSA Official: Terror Plot Cooked by Bush Blair Mafia
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/August2006/110806_b_Cooked.htm

Here is an article to really get the conspiracy theorists among us going.

fly_agaric

Sovtek wrote:

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

I don't think the UK govt. was ever stupid/deluded/mendacious enough to do that with Iraq.

Trying to do it now would be a very silly retrospective justification.

The fundamentalism/terrorism has been energised by that war - even if Tony Blair and the UK govt. will not admit it for political reasons.

Sovtek wrote:

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

Well, the items discovered, the passport forging etc and the fact that a Police officer was killed in the raid suggets they were not really up to any good - even if there was no chance in hell of them actually making Ricin and poisoning people with it.

Flukey wrote:

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?

I don't believe the entire UK and Irish police forces, and their criminal justice systems are rotten to the core and the govt's can't open their mouths without telling lies.

Do you really believe that miscarriages of justice are the rule rather than the exception in the UK and Ireland?

That's much too cynical and depressing for me.

fly_agaric

New_Departure06 wrote:

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:

As InFront suggested with his question, you can always come up with some justification semi-related to politics/govt. policy [if Ireland got attacked it would be Shannon - or the fact that we are friends of the US and the UK etc etc and a lot of "right-thinking" lefty types would wring their hands and say if only we had done x y or z instead of a b or c we would have been spared]. It's not the whole story though, is it?

With Germany and Canada in particular - I think you are reaching however.

The target in Germany was not a Federal Building or an EU office or anything political - it was to be a bloody (very bloody!) Christmas Market AFAIR ffs!

Down with the Satanic Christmas Stollen and Baubles Opressing the Brothas!

Cork

Ex pats are vulnerable.

Irish terrorism was funded by ex pats in the US.

Even with newspapers, tv and radio - these can be easily explioted.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

Georg Bush's hardline, swaggering, tough spittin' attitude and remarks of "Islamofascism"

I couldn't believe he went and used the quite offensive construction "Islamofascism" [reminds me of "feminazism"] in his stupid speech.
I bet it caused Poodle Tony to emit a large groan of pain.

InFront

I know, I mean dont get me wrong, they are Muslims (misguided Muslims) and their extremist ideology is akin to fascism.
But the use of that word is so vague it implies some sort of shared load of blame between Islam and Militism. As if the violent ideologies are only part of it... it's difficult to explain, but "Islamofascism" is irritatingly vague. It's almost like using the term "White Fascism" to describe Apartheid, even though most white people (as we saw in ireland) opposed it vehemently.

Theres nothing blatantly "inaccurate" in this very loose term, but it's the act of being so general that causes it to be offensive I think. Maybe offensive is a strong word. It's definitely bad taste, and as a PR tactic, it's astonishingly counter-productive.

Flukey

fly_agaric wrote:

Do you really believe that miscarriages of justice are the rule rather than the exception in the UK and Ireland?

Of course not. All I am saying is that we can't always believe what we are told. There are many precedents. Most of the time they do get it right. Sometimes they get it wrong. On occasions then things are twisted and turned a bit, to suit certain agendas.

InFront wrote:

But a very basic question: why is there not even a hint of extremist actions here, but there are terrorist attacks less than an hour away in London? Do we not have enough Muslims yet? Do Irish people get on better with Muslims? of course not. It has an undeniable link to foreign policy.

In a strange way, it is on occasions one of the few things we have the troubles to thank for. From many quarters Ireland has been seen as rebelling against one of the two great powers. I am not saying that it is the case in this instance, but certainly on occasions in a way it has worked in our favour.

The_Scary_Man

Bush links Hizbollah to plot

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4787207.stm

Dirk Gently

The_Scary_Man wrote:

Bush links Hizbollah to plot

I was wondering how long it would take to link it with an established pre Iraq war bogey man. Notice how he linked Hezbollah by saying "people like Hezbollah". I suppose many people will blame Iran and syria now because of the phantom Hezbollah link.

Just to touch on what other posters are saying, notice how after bush used the term Islamic fascist it got reported at the start as "president Bush says Islamic fascist" as in quoting him but now the term Islamic Fascist is used without reference to Bush and is just accepted as a fact. Not exactly going out of their way to single out the groups involved as opposed to the whole Islamic religion. How much of that is poor use of language by Bush and how much of it is deliberate language influenced by the Christian right who populate the neo-con circles?

SpAcEd OuT

New_Departure06 wrote:

Regarding Canada, I could refer to Harper's support for Israel's "measured" military action. :eek:

Or the fact that they are in involved in helping to occupy Afghanistan

InFront

Originally posted by The_Scary_Man
Bush links Hizbollah to plot

I read a transcript of it, it was very well written on their behalf. The link to Hezbollah is well crafted, but he has also been making these sorts of links in the past few addresses. I'm beginning to wonder if the guy is trying to fool us or is being fooled himself.

Mr Bush said the UK terror plot was a "reminder that terrorists are still plotting attacks to kill our people...
...was "further evidence that the terrorists we face are sophisticated, and constantly changing their tactics".

So he's going to keep on doing what he's doing while they develop and change their tactics? If he recognises they are still here and still developing, why isnt he asking himself where he's going wrong? Why are American media not asking that?

"The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women, and children," Mr Bush said...

..."They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology."

Something Im sure evryone can agree on. I just wish he was as vocal on all murder of innocent men women and children, not just American and British ones. Of course that doesnt oil the propaganda machine

Elsewhere today the British Foreign Minister has gone out and attacked the suggestion that aggressive Foreign Policy has been fuelling the unrest towards his country. He dismissed such suggestions as facile

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4787119.stm

Mr Howells... said "no government" formulates policy based on a perceived risk from terrorists.

War On Terror anyone??

Lirange

Ciaran500 wrote:

Clinton came over and had some talks with party leaders in favour of the peace process. Not really US intervention.

clown bag wrote:

A few photo ops for Bill Clinton was certainly helpful but America didn't just wave a magic wand and make everything alright.

Well to be fair ... it was a bit more than that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/profiles/george_mitchell.stm

But obviously the parties themselves had to be committed to it so it would be they, more than anyone, that made the framework possible.

Hobbes

Appears someone is claiming Hezbollah are part of the UK attacks.. none other then ... wait for it... yep you guessed it. Bush.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4787207.stm

[edit] looks like someone already pointed that out.

Victor

And still people have some humour.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4784225.stm

Cabin baggage ban hits musicians

Only items like medicines and passports are allowed into the cabin
Russian musicians returning from London after the Bolshoi Theatre's season face an overland journey because of the new UK cabin baggage ban on planes.

.....

Confusion over the new restrictions extended into the cabin when a hostess asked passengers to switch off mobile phones and was met by loud laughter from the passengers, none of whom had been allowed to bring theirs aboard.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

Mr Howells... said "no government" formulates policy based on a perceived risk from terrorists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4787119.stm
War On Terror anyone??

In fairness, I think you know that's not the point.

It's important to be mindful of Government spin. Bush's statement that all these groups share a 'totalitarian ideology' is presumably an attempt to suggest that being in Iraq is an action aimed at protecting the US public from terrorist attacks. We know that to be nonsense, and that it is unlikely that anyone in Iraq issued an order that went off down a chain of command to London, where eager volunteers rushed to put it into effect.

It is equally perfectly right and reasonable that people point out that no-one has been convicted of anything yet, and to recall that serious mistakes have been made in the past.

But we have equally make sure we don't introduce a spin of our own. What Howells means is democratically elected Governments cannot allow themselves to be intimidated by terrorists. That is actually right, and not the same as saying that the Government should not try to combat terrorism - which is what you seem to be trying to spin it as. (To be clear, I think we would both agree that the War on Terror is a dangerous circus, which has cost the lives of many innocent people.)

I think the UK's Muslim community leaders have got it wrong on this point. I cannot disagree with Howells statement

"I have no doubt that there are many issues which incite people to loath government policies but not to strap explosives to themselves and go out and murder innocent people.

"There is no way of rationalising that.

"I think it is very, very dangerous when people who call themselves community leaders make some assumption that somehow that there's a rational connection between these two things."

It simply isn't rational that British Muslims become suicide bombers in response to events in Iraq. That's not to say that the people concerned would not tell you that was their motivation - just that it is not a reasonable course of action for such a person to take. Its the political equivalent of stalking, only instead of **** over a picture of Britney Spears these people get their jollies from a fantasy where they play Luke Skywalker taking on Darth Bush.

If we want to think of an image that makes this violence unattractive, maybe we need to get into a mindset where we recognise that their deaths occupy much the same place in the scheme of things as accidental death from autoerotic asphyxiation. These UK community leaders are simply sustaining the attractive image of terrorists as powerful and too hot to handle. That’s a massive mistake.

You’ll understand I’m not suggesting that, in principle, these people are doing things unique to Islam. Much the same kind of thing has been done by Irish paramilitaries of all hues. Irish paramilitaries have killed people at prayer, killed people in front of their families, lured people by an apparent offer of friendship into situations where they could be butchered and set off bombs without any consideration for who might happened to be caught in the blast. In my own mind, I feel the level of fanaticism needed to go on hunger strike, which needs only one moment of weakness to fail, exceeds that needed to be a suicide bomber, which needs only one moment of strength.

But having said all that, I have to admit I read that news article and found myself saying ‘wtf’. I think there are massive parallels between Islam and Irish Catholicism, and I felt this was the equivalent of the Catholic Church's head in the sand approach to child sex abuse.

The_Scary_Man

TONY Blair is planning to push through 90-day detention without charge for terror suspects following the alleged plot to murder thousands of airline passengers by blowing their jets out of the sky.

Senior ministers believe public concern about terrorism is now at such a level that they will be able to reintroduce the controversial detention powers, which were rejected in favour of a 28-day limit following the 7/7 attacks.

A senior government source confirmed that Blair, Chancellor Gordon Brown and Home Secretary John Reid all believed that the UK's apparently narrow escape from a major disaster proved the case for a clamp-down on "the enemy within".

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1178302006&format=print

This is how they use fear. If 28 days was deemed sufficient after 7/7 why then are they pushing for 90 days now?

While the thought of the government being able to hold citizens captive for up to 3 months without charge is enough to make your head spin its the poltical opportunism that really sticks out.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

In fairness, I think you know that's not the point.

It absolutely wasn't his point, I agree. He meant that "we cant change our tactics just because they (the extremists) are threatening us" or words to that effect. Im just pointing out that that is what they did with Afghanistan. I thought it was an odd choice of phrase, it isnt even a big deal.

Im not trying to spin it as anything, I think that in social, diplomatic and economic terms, a "war" on terror is absolutely necessary.

Where I do disagree with you is on this letter which you disagree with(?).

In the letter, there are a few terms that are certainly too strong and forward for this sort of communication, the "ammunition to extremists" comment, for example.
However, by and large, they've got it spot on. They ask the government to "redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism, and change foreign policy to show the UK values the lives of civilians." and ask that the government "(show) itself as an advocate for justice in the world"

Now as everyone (hopefully) seems to think, foreign policy did not cause the suicide bombers to kill London commuters last year, it did not cause the twin tower attacks in NYC. That would be an incredibly daft suggestion in my opinion.
However, foreign policy, most specifically the invasion of the Middle East, did put in place a chain of events, that mixed with poor standard of living, an identity with the peoples of the Middle East, spurred on by extremism and self-deception, caused these terrorist attacks. There are many factors to the outbreak of this new terrorism.

To say that there is absolutely no rational connection between England's role in the Middle East, and July 7th, as Howells has done, is ludicrous. From reading his response, he himself seems to be getting confused between cause and connection. He argue's the link to foreign policy with the stance 'well we didnt cause it'. The letter doesnt even suggest that they 'caused' it.

There is no justification, but there is certainly a connection. That, in my opinion, warrants a closer examination of British Foreign Policy and suggests that there may be the necessity to pursue more effective and beneficial methods in combatting terrorism.

Hobbes

The_Scary_Man wrote:

While the thought of the government being able to hold citizens captive for up to 3 months without charge is enough to make your head spin its the poltical opportunism that really sticks out.

We have nothing to worry about as they would only use it on terrorists and we have never had any Irish terrorists in England.

The_Scary_Man

Hobbes wrote:

We have nothing to worry about as they would only use it on terrorists and we have never had any Irish terrorists in England.

Yeah they'll only apply it to Muslims anyway, what was I worried about.:eek:

Its not like they are going to start taking their lead from the US and start using anti-terror laws like the PATRIOT Act in cases that have no link to terrorism.

mike65

We have nothing to worry about as they would only use it on terrorists and we have never had any Irish terrorists in England.

and said with a straight face.

Mike.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

To say that there is absolutely no rational connection between England's role in the Middle East, and July 7th, as Howells has done, is ludicrous.

While we are not saying the same thing, I don't think our perceptions of the general issue are wildly apart. I even agree that Britain needs to review its foreign policy. I just don't see terrorism as a reason for that review.

I take Howells point to be that if terrorism is seen as a motive for change on this occasion, it will encourage its use in other situations. I cannot fault that logic. I don't read his statement that there is no 'rational' link to mean a chain of events cannot connect the two strands of foriegn policy and terrorism. What I take it to mean (rightly or wrongly) is much what I'm saying. i.e. terrorism is the political equivalent of stalking. Just because someone parrots the right rhetoric while strapping explosives to themselves does not mean you see suicide bombing as a natural outcome of Government pursuing a deeply flawed policy.

We have representational government. So do the UK. While practical flaws exist in that model, there is truly no reason why people need to use these methods to get their points across. That's what I take Howells point to be, and I agree with it. The London bombers were practicing a particulary lethal kind of autoerotic asphyxiation. Allowing that act to gain a political significance has massive implications.

The Catholic Church eventually and under massive external pressure had to deal with the fact that some clergy were engaged in sexual abuse. Left to its own devices, it was happy to brush the issue under the carpet. It could even, truly, maintain the position that the vast majority of clergy were not child abusers - it was only a few bad apples. But they resisted dealing with the fact that those few bad apples were in their barrel.

By the same token, trying to spin that the root cause of all this is foriegn policy does look like a handy way for leaders of the UK Islamic community to avoid reflecting on whether the existance of these few bad apples raises more searching questions.

Hopefully I won't have to keep repeating that in saying this I'm not trying to add to the tabloid view of Muslims as Daleks, utterly beyond our understanding and committed only to taking over the planet. Quite the opposite. I feel there are many parallels from our own experience that make the issues involved understandable. I read that article, closed my eyes and saw an Islamic version of Father Ted doing his best to dodge and fudge.

Victor

Of note, the recent raft of UK anti-terrorism legislation doesn't apply to the North.