"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Not according to Newsweek who claims despite official protestations over US policy, international cooperation even amongst moslem nations such as Syria is at an all time high with US and UK coalitions.



Your right why should I take the speculative word of Newsweek regarding the most recent plot.

I just love you neo-cons. Simple little minds running around in your little mind-boxes, thinking everything and everyone plays by rules you have written.

Who cares if the Syrian government is cooperating? Who cares if the Egyptian government is cooperating? Hell, The Iraqi governmentis cooperating pretty well I bet, but doesn't something seem wrong to you?

Don't you get it? Why are drugs still pouring across our southern and Northern borders? Both governemtns have strong anti-drug laws, and cooperate on a grand scale?

It's not the big governemnts that control or watch these things. The big government just does the paperwork and interviews of the small government guys. The local governments are the ones whose sympathies we need.

You neo-con overlords think you can just rule the world with bombs, and to hell with popular opinion, as long as you have their governments shaking in fear, we have nothing to fear. Not only is it inhuman and pollutive of our city on the hill, it is also just plain sophomoric and counter-productive. You would think you guys had some sense of assymetric warfare by now, but nope, you guys keep thinking in old WW II style geo-politics. And that is your real failure of thought, you all think this conflict, this global war on terrorism is akin to World War II, when it isn't even close.

or for that matter the self admission of the NYT saying the SWIFT program brought about Hambali's apprehension.

So what, they knew their money was being tracked. You guys throw red herrings all over the placve. It's not that we object to terrorists being tracked, it's that we object to everyone being tracked. Why are you guys so afraid of warrants? What is so hard about getting a warrant?


I'll tell you what. The Bush adminsitration has seen this war on terror as a golden political opportunity from the get-go. Cheneys little "Lamonts victory is helping Al-Queada" speech after this incident was just another stupid statement in a long line of stupid neocons saying stupid things and showing they have no problem exploiting the peril our nation faces for political gain.

Im out.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by NeOmega

Who cares if the Syrian government is cooperating? Who cares if the Egyptian government is cooperating? Hell, The Iraqi governmentis cooperating pretty well I bet, but doesn't something seem wrong to you?

Don't you get it? Why are drugs still pouring across our southern and Northern borders? Both governemtns have strong anti-drug laws, and cooperate on a grand scale?

It's not the big governemnts that control or watch these things. The big government just does the paperwork and interviews of the small government guys. The local governments are the ones whose sympathies we need.

You neo-con overlords think you can just rule the world with bombs, and to hell with popular opinion, as long as you have their governments shaking in fear, we have nothing to fear. Not only is it inhuman and pollutive of our city on the hill, it is also just plain sophomoric and counter-productive. You would think you guys had some sense of assymetric warfare by now, but nope, you guys keep thinking in old WW II style geo-politics. And that is your real failure of thought, you all think this conflict, this global war on terrorism is akin to World War II, when it isn't even close.

"Yes, Bush's foreign policy has created animosity towards the United States, but this does not directly mean more attacks or plots have been attempted, it means international intelligence cooperation has become more difficult, especially with muslim countries, where it matters most."


Am i the only one who sees a contradiction here?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by NeOmega


I just love you neo-cons. Simple little minds running around in your little mind-boxes, thinking everything and everyone plays by rules you have written.

Who cares if the Syrian government is cooperating? Who cares if the Egyptian government is cooperating? Hell, The Iraqi governmentis cooperating pretty well I bet, but doesn't something seem wrong to you?

Don't you get it? Why are drugs still pouring across our southern and Northern borders? Both governemtns have strong anti-drug laws, and cooperate on a grand scale?

It's not the big governemnts that control or watch these things. The big government just does the paperwork and interviews of the small government guys. The local governments are the ones whose sympathies we need.

You neo-con overlords think you can just rule the world with bombs, and to hell with popular opinion, as long as you have their governments shaking in fear, we have nothing to fear. Not only is it inhuman and pollutive of our city on the hill, it is also just plain sophomoric and counter-productive. You would think you guys had some sense of assymetric warfare by now, but nope, you guys keep thinking in old WW II style geo-politics. And that is your real failure of thought, you all think this conflict, this global war on terrorism is akin to World War II, when it isn't even close.

Wooah there Sylvester. Back away from the edge and stop hyperventilating.

A couple of fallacies that need pointing out.

a) NeoCon Me. OOh that one is so sweet.
b) You were the one who BAM'd the statement that our course of action was preventing international support of Moslem NATIONS. When confronted with evidence to the contrary the answer is its not the right type of support it now needs to be the locals.Which is it? Pray tell what is the right type of support if it indeed leads to capture of the aforementioned asshats in England.

Edit Damn - xposting with LotM

c) You ascribe viewpoints regarding WWII parallels I haven't even discussed. Care to be even more off the mark.
d) In my opening post re: effectivity of investigative techniques I fully allowed that our foreign policy might be cause for issue. And if you didn't realize I was one of those who did not want us in Iraq in the first place.
e) All the above has little if anything to do with the so called 'illegal' investigivative techniques bearing fruit. Clearly this is indeed the case.

So what, they knew their money was being tracked. You guys throw red herrings all over the placve. It's not that we object to terrorists being tracked, it's that we object to everyone being tracked. Why are you guys so afraid of warrants? What is so hard about getting a warrant?

Ummm..... for overseas SWIFT investigations there were warrants.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega

So what, they knew their money was being tracked. You guys throw red herrings all over the placve. It's not that we object to terrorists being tracked, it's that we object to everyone being tracked. Why are you guys so afraid of warrants? What is so hard about getting a warrant?

Bull****. How did they know their money was being tracked?

And as for warrants they should only be required for intrusive searches. SWIFT really should not be reguarded as an intrusive search because the suspect doesn't even realize they are being 'searched'. This is a much broader issue I admit but I will always find the notion that government searches that don't intrude into our lives should require a warrant as grossly unreasonable. Warrents require leads, so non intrusive searches should be used to produce those leads. If we define non intrusive searches too narrowly the government will only catch the bad guys when they get a lucky break or when the bad guys do something really stupid.

You also seem to think that warrants are painlessly quick and easy and efficient to obtain. However consider the following, officers don't require warrants to point a radar gun at my car. I wonder how easy it would be to catch speeders if a warrant was required before an officer could point a radar gun at a car? I daresay it would become almost impossible to enforce the speed limits.

[Lodi]

You neo-con overlords think you can just rule the world with bombs, and to hell with popular opinion, as long as you have their governments shaking in fear, we have nothing to fear.

This statement has given me a joygasm.

[Dauphin]

If anyone ever has the desire to spend their entire working day tracing money movements and analysing bank vouchers they can have my job. I could do with a break.

[Lodi]

Cool, are you a forensic accountant, Dauphin?

[Toby Rowe]

Hi all,

Apparently the "baby milk" was to be mixed with a second compound, and in the act of mass murder, the mother, father and child were all to die.

I guess as the government subsequently ordered all mums to taste the "baby milk" before boarding, doing so must get an instant reaction in the body-search area; they must clearly know the compound due to be put into the babies' bottle.

Lord Stevens, a former Metrropolitan Police Commissioner stated on Sunday that the UK needed to adopt "passenger profiling" targeting young Muslim men, I'm certain the entire world except for young Muslim men would agree with that commonsense statement.
The leader of the Muslim council of Britain (Muhammad Abdul Bari) however thought otherwise stating "This is an extreme form of stereotyping".

Really? I 'aint seen a lot of British Christians, Jews, Sikh's or Buddhists trying to inflict mass murder on a population recently, perhaps he knows different to the rest of the country.

The time has come for the Muslim population of the UK to stop whinging and face the facts: People from your community are trying to murder other British people. FACT.

As the leader of race relations in the UK (a black guy) said last year to Muslims, if you don't feel you can fit into British society any longer, then pack your bags and move to another nation you feel at home in.

Toby

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe
if you don't feel you can fit into British society any longer, then pack your bags and move to another nation you feel at home in.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Lodi
Cool, are you a forensic accountant, Dauphin?

'Cool' and 'Forensic Accountant' in the same sentence? CSI London, Forensic Accountant division just doesn't have that ring to it does it?

I am indeed a forensic accountant, but I put 'Jet-setting international crimefighter' on my resumé.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
No terrorist has collected taxes from you to fund social programs.

I think I gave some money for the war widows in Northern Ireland during the 80s. Or, way to miss the point, LotM.

The remark was a response to Winston's comment that some people are more concerned about civil rights than terrorists. Damn right we are, and for the reasons I listed. I'm more likely to be killed in a car accident than by a terrorist. Terrorism is rather low on the list of things that are likely to mess with me, where as, my government has.

[DinoDoc]

No wonder you're against the government tracking the funding of terrorism.

[chequita guevara]

In the 1980s, it wasn't against the law.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Am i the only one who sees a contradiction here?

No you just missed the point about the drug war, and how local government is where the most important intelligence does or does not come from.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Bull****. How did they know their money was being tracked?

Bush said he was tracking them. Surely you remember the quotes in this forum, or need I remind you again?

And as for warrants they should only be required for intrusive searches.

Oh yeah, what law states that? remember, the executive does not have authority to pass laws, so tell me, which law states a warrant is only needed for intrusive searches.... ooops, caught you making up stuff again.

SWIFT really should not be reguarded as an intrusive search because the suspect doesn't even realize they are being 'searched'. This is a much broader issue I admit but I will always find the notion that government searches that don't intrude into our lives should require a warrant as grossly unreasonable. Warrents require leads, so non intrusive searches should be used to produce those leads. If we define non intrusive searches too narrowly the government will only catch the bad guys when they get a lucky break or when the bad guys do something really stupid.

See above, and why you wasted your time typing this. Irrelevant.

You also seem to think that warrants are painlessly quick and easy and efficient to obtain. However consider the following, officers don't require warrants to point a radar gun at my car. I wonder how easy it would be to catch speeders if a warrant was required before an officer could point a radar gun at a car? I daresay it would become almost impossible to enforce the speed limits.

Do you not know the difference between a warrant and an officer witnessing a crime?