"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[Sava]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

because I refuse to buy into the fearmongering and panicky rhetoric of the administration and the idiotic overreaction of mob intelligence, that makes me a dumbass?

Yes... and a traitor.

[Q Classic]

but you still have whiners complaining about "paranoia" . unbelievable..

Like I said, I can't wait for some terrorist to something dangerous up his ass so we all have to go through a cavity search before boarding a plane.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


depends on where you are. you can check this stuff, just NOT carry it on, which makes sense.

I never check stuff in. It takes too long to retrieve it, and time is precious in business travelling.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Sava


Yes... and a traitor.

Oh, ****.

Sava, you've convinced me of the error of my ways.

I realize now, that everything the TSA does is always brilliant.

Including setting up x-ray machines in terminals where savvy terrorists can detonate their luggage near long lines of people.

Including setting up liquid receptacles where potentially noxious chemicals can mix, react, interact, releasing fumes--in short, setting up a public location for mixing binary chemical weapons or explosives.

It is a major victory.

You sir, are a formidable opponent.

[Wiglaf]

Why? Because people are afraid of liquids. They are terrorized, terrified of fluids, and because of that, that ****ing baby is going to be crying a lot more often on those flights.

Small price to pay . i'd imagine that items like this will be allowed eventually , perhaps sold at the airport, but I make no bones about the fact that I dont give a **** either way.

i cannot imagine any other liquid you would need on a plane in a container like this.

[Gatekeeper]

Well, it didn't take long for U.S. politicians to chime in ...

By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats clashed over the war on terror on Thursday within hours of the disclosure of a thwarted terrorist plot in Britain, each side accusing the other of doing too little to deter the threat of attack.

"We must implement the strong recommendations of the independent 9/11 commission to improve airport security screening at checkpoints," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, stressing one of the party's principal campaign-year promises in its drive to gain control of Congress.

Ohio Republicans said the Democratic candidate for the Senate, Rep. Sherrod Brown (news, bio, voting record), had voted against money "for the very types of programs that helped the British thwart these vicious attacks."

"I don't question his patriotism, but the fact is if Sherrod Brown had his way, America would be less safe," said Bob Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party.

Brown, who is challenging Republican Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record), mentioned the billions on the Iraq war and said the thwarted attacks "underscore the need to refocus our resources on fighting the war on terror."

The charges served as a reminder that with midterm elections less than three months away, not even an alleged attack to blow up passenger planes was off-limits to politics.

Both Republicans and Democrats are seeking political advantage on national security. Voters will choose a new Congress Nov. 7, and polls show the public favoring Democratic control of Congress over Republicans who have been in power for a dozen years.

Additionally, recent polls have found that the Republican edge on terrorism and protecting the country has eroded over the past few months.

An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week — but before news of the foiled terror plot — found that 40 percent approved of President Bush's performance on foreign policy and terrorism, down slightly from 44 percent in July. The percentage was still higher than the number of Americans who approve of his handling of Iraq, the economy and domestic issues.

The disclosure Thursday that British officials disrupted terrorists' plans to blow up aircraft heading to the U.S. gave both Republicans and Democrats an opportunity to emphasize their positions on national security — and highlight the differences facing voters.

"Freedom is never free, and we must never be complacent in defending it," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said. Echoing the GOP's election-year message, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., added: "We must be on alert so that our nation does not suffer another attack like 9/11."

"As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding priorities, we are not as safe as we should be," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada countered.

Not all Democrats echoed their leaders' refrain.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who intends to run as an independent after losing his Democratic primary to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont, said the foiled plot "should serve as the latest, most serious evidence that we are in a war against a brutal enemy that intends to attack us over and over again in the most indiscriminate way."

Lamont said the Bush administration has been preoccupied with Iraq while national security and efforts to curb terrorism have suffered. "We need to change course, and that means standing up to this administration and fighting for our security in a rational, serious way," he said.

In 2002 and 2004, the GOP sought to make the case that there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil since 2001 because the Bush administration and Republicans have been diligent on national security. The GOP portrayed Democrats as weak on the issue and suggested that Democratic rule could endanger the country.

In a sign that the issues will reverberate beyond this fall, potential 2008 presidential candidates weighed in on the scheme.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's office said he will activate the National Guard to help with security at Logan International Airport for the first time since the 2001 attacks. And, New York Gov. George Pataki, also a Republican, said the disrupted terror operation "underscores the need for continued vigilance, intelligence gathering and cooperation among law enforcement agencies and the public."

... there are days when a darker part of me wonders if America might not have been better off if the U.S. Capitol and/or White House had been blown apart on Sept. 11, 2001, rather than the World Trade Center.

Gatekeeper

[Wiglaf]

Wow, you're a psychopath.

Although the "darker side of me" is hoping that Odin comes in and quotes your entire post, which btw is criminally long, and then adds "QFT" to it. That'd be worthwhile.

I never check stuff in. It takes too long to retrieve it, and time is precious in business travelling.

it takes 15 minutes, deal with it, just like you dealt with longer lines post-9/11.

[Gatekeeper]

Psychopath, huh? No, more like depressed. Being in the news business does that to a person after a number of years. It's silly, perhaps, but I find real joy in editing and reading about births, anniversaries, engagements and whatnot.

Gatekeeper

[Sava]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


Sava, you've convinced me of the error of my ways.

You sir, are a formidable opponent.

I'm also abominable.

[Chemical Ollie]

Tom Clancy

[Sava]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Tom Clancy

hasn't made a good flick since Red October

[Chemical Ollie]

I assume he was really pulled off his feet by 9/11, which was very close to his own fiction in "Debt of Honour". He was very silent for a long time, and switched subject back to the cold war just to avoid the issue. Then he wrote a novel where a secret US intelligence organisation murders terrorists with toxic injections and never picks the wrong targets. If that happened in real life, we would all be happy. But what I like most of his last novel is that the terrorist's ISP is named something like "euro.com"

[Sava]

He seems to have a talent for envisioning these scenarios, but everything else about his writing pretty much sucks. And he uses Jack Ryan way too much. Ryan even got to be President at one point.

I forget which book that was.

How about being a little more creative and making up some more characters?

Clancy's talent lies in his knowledge of global affairs, military, and security... but as a fiction writer, he is sub-par at best.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I assume he was really pulled off his feet by 9/11, which was very close to his own fiction in "Debt of Honour". He was very silent for a long time, and switched subject back to the cold war just to avoid the issue. Then he wrote a novel where a secret US intelligence organisation murders terrorists with toxic injections and never picks the wrong targets. If that happened in real life, we would all be happy. But what I like most of his last novel is that the terrorist's ISP is named something like "euro.com"

I read the latter book you mentioned, and it sucked horribly. I think he'd run out of ideas and/or just wanted a quick buck.

[Odin]

@ Wiglaf.