"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[Winston]

I wish people would be half as suspicious and condemning of terrorists and their supporters as they apparently are of security forces and politicians.

[chequita guevara]

No terrorist ever spied on me. My government has. No terrorist stopped me and searched me for walking down the street at 1am. My government has. No terroist ever surrounded me and questioned and went through my things because I happened to be wearing black. My government has. No terrorist ever stole my vote. My government has. I could go on.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo

You have to be extraordinarily naive to think that Western pluralism is what primarily motivates Jihadis to committ acts of terror.

Well I think we can rule out killing Moslems as the reason. Israel, the United States and Nato combined kill far fewer Moslems than are killed in Iraq by their co-religionists, and a tiny fraction compared to those being wiped out in Darfur. Far more Moslem outrage was unleashed over the Danish cartoons than over Darfur. We can't even trust the Moslem world to explain to us exactly wtf they are so upset about. It's like a cranky two-year old at bedtime.

[Datajack Franit]

Did the government try to kill you? Kidnap and behead you? Put bombs in buildings and mass transit networks?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No terrorist ever spied on me.

How do you know? A gunman (we cant call him a terrorist I suppose, cause theres no evidence of group involvement, but he did announce a political motivation) killed someone a few days ago at the Seattle Jewish Center. He may well have cased the place in advance. How do I know someone like that didnt case the Jewish Center here in Northern Virginia, with the intention of coming in shooting, when I was in it.

So the terrorists arent so personally intereted in you, Guev. Well Mazel Tov.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

You have to be extraordinarily naive to think that Western pluralism is what primarily motivates Jihadis to committ acts of terror.

I dont know what motivates any individual jihadi. It is true, however, that the ideology that Al Qaeeda is driven by is Qutbist in origin, and Qutb WAS offended at Western pluralism, and what AQ most dislikes about secular muslim states is NOT their proclivity toward dictatorship but their proclivity toward secularism and pluralism.

Its too bad Bush doesnt articulate this better, but its still true.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara . My government has. No terrorist stopped me and searched me for walking down the street at 1am.

Terrorists arent concerned about preventing street crimes - Yay for terrrorists!

No terrorist has collected taxes from you to fund social programs. No terrorist has ticketed you for parking in a loading zone. No terrorist has asked you to fill out forms as part of a decenial census. One could go on and on.

[lord of the mark]

[

Actually, if there are no attacks I think it a sign of good intelligence operations.

Maybe you would , there are plenty of people who seem to feel otherwise.

I think the huge fuss about terror being blown out of proportion arises is where you have spurious linkages between cause and effect and a massive disconnect between what is done to prevent terror and what would actually prevent terror.

We can all disagree about the best methods, Im not sure that relates to this.

The thing that strikes me is that, in the middle of this sudden 'critical' security state of affairs, Blair can afford to go on holiday. If there was a real threat of another 9/11 would you ponce off to the Caribbean? I'm sure it can be explained away, but it still raises the question.

IIUC, theyve been following this cell for almost a year. They just got word that the plot was far advanced enough that they had to pounce. Would you have had Blair not go on vacation for a year?

And, yes you are right, precaution is better than catastrophe. Likewise I think it be better to be cynical of what you are told than to be accepting of what you are told. I just question the timing and the presentation, because no matter what happens it will be politically loaded. When it's political it's going to be murky water.

I listen to different sides, each govt and its critics, and weigh them. I dont see that a case has been made for particular skepticism on this incident.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
The details that the NYT provided weren't useful to terrorists since SWIFT (as I mentioned in the other thread) encompasses virtually every commercial bank. The general idea that we were tracking bank transfers was already given away multiple times by Dear Leader and company. Again, as I mentioned in the other thread, in '04 he campaigned on the very fact that we have been able to track down a large amount (over a hundred and forty million dollars) in terrorist financial transactions.

Unbelievabel that you continue to spout this drivel.

The fact that SWIFT is so all encompassing is exaclty why it was so damaging that it was revealed. The inference that we were able to track international money transfers to the noneducated would be to suggest large dollar transcations were traceable not necessarily large and small $ transfers. Akin to the $10,000 notifications US banks are required to notify to the IRS.

Put another way it would be the equivalent of saying we have plan airiel surveilance in a war zone. Enemies figure this means they have night and low cloud cover opportunities to move undetected only to find out from the press that unbeknownst to them the US has state of the art infrared surveillance techniques that allow spying in any circumstance.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


BFD. Everyone knew their finances were being tracked through the legal banking system. If it were an important secret, the government could have prevented publication.

Horse****. The pentagon paper case specifically would be used as precedent to allow the press to release classified information. In other words the governement can not prevent the disclosure but....

Likewise, however, this does not means however that the press can't be held criminally responsible for doing so.

to wit the Pentagon Papers case Justic White weighs in as follows:

It is thus clear that Congress has addressed itself to the problems of protecting the security of the country and the national defense from unauthorized disclosure of potentially damaging information. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 -586 (1952); see also id., at 593-628 (Frankfurter, J., concurring). It has not, however, authorized the injunctive remedy against threatened publication. It has apparently been satisfied to rely on criminal sanctions and their deterrent effect on the responsible as well as the irresponsible press. I am not, of course, saying that either of these newspapers has yet committed a crime or that either would commit a crime if it published all the material now in its possession. That matter must await resolution in the context of a criminal proceeding if one is instituted by the United States. In that event, the issue of guilt or innocence would be determined by procedures and standards quite different from those that have purported to govern these injunctive proceedings.

Bolding mine.

[NeOmega]

everybody knew Valerie Plame worked for the CIA


*runs away*

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Winston
I wish people would be half as suspicious and condemning of terrorists and their supporters as they apparently are of security forces and politicians.

Tru dat. It strikes me as the gist of the John Tirman article as an opportunistic critique of foregin intervention all the while praising proper criminal investigative techinique.

While one might argue about the foreign intervention part, it truly is a nonsequitor in this case. More importantly the criminal investigation praises ring extremely hollow considering the fuss and obstruction the US left has argued for in almost every circumstance.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Unbelievabel that you continue to spout this drivel.

They aren't listening to you. It's a reflex action along the lines of Pavlov. If it is an action undertaken by the Bush admin something must be wrong with it and it should be exposed regardless of what it was.

[NeOmega]

No Islamic terroist attacks happened on US soil under Clinton after the 93 WTC bombings, Clinton went 6 more years without incident.


Bush is only in year 5!

*runs away again*

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by NeOmega
No Islamic terroist attacks happened on US soil under Clinton after the 93 WTC bombings, Clinton went 6 more years without incident.


Bush is only in year 5!

*runs away again*

Ummm... you are aware that emabssies are US soil.

98 Kenya and Tanzania if your memory needs a jog.

Continue running tho'.