"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by NeOmega


I didn't say squat about "heightened security measures of the Clintonian era"

But yet that was the entire context of thread, namely how investigation thwarted the latest plot. It would be natural to think that was the context in which the comparisons were drawn.

I was pointing more to the fact that just because no major attacks have happened since Sept 11, doesn't mean that Bush is doing any better of a job, or that the illegal programs he is implementing are doing anything but taking our rights away. The supposed lack of attacks in the past 5 years proves squat-didly-piss.

Aside from the incorrect characterization of Bush's investigative programs as illegal (a point to which no legal standing has been weighed in on) then what was the point?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


But yet that was the entire context of thread, namely how investigation thwarted the latest plot. It would be natural to think that was the context in which the comparisons were drawn.

I already explained why I mentioned Clinton. Just because nothing has happened in 5 years, doesn't mean all these new Presidential illegal powers are doing anything.

Aside from the incorrect characterization of Bush's investigative programs as illegal (a point to which no legal standing has been weighed in on) then what was the point?

Just because nothing has happened in 5 years, doesn't mean all these new Presidential illegal powers are doing anything.




And if you read Icasualties every day like I do, you would see attacks on the American embassy are actually quite frequent, just like American deaths, but the liberal media really doesn't report either very often.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Did you ever see the footage of the attack during the transfer of sovereignty ceremony?

What does that have to do with your patently false claim?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Just because nothing has happened in 5 years, doesn't mean all these new Presidential illegal powers are doing anything.

I see, so you are making claims that less plots than ever are being hatched against the US on US soil. Less so than say the same time period of the CLintonian years.

Kudos to you. I suppose that means you have essentially dispelled the cannard about our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq causing more terrorists to rise up against the US. Or perhaps it simply means you are on the neocon bandwagon "Better to thave the fight over there than on our soil".

And if you read Icasualties every day like I do, you would see attacks on the American embassy are actually quite frequent, just like American deaths, but the liberal media really doesn't report either very often.

I don't see that it provides any fresh insight other than to reinforce already deeply ingrained paranoias.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Darius871


What does that have to do with your patently false claim?

I have withdrawn my false claim, it doesn't matter, I still win.

Clinton had 5 years between terroist attacks during his term, Bush has had alot less than five years between, a lot, lot less.

Even bringing in Kenya was stupid and trying to dodge the point.

[Lodi]

Just because nothing has happened in 5 years, doesn't mean all these new Presidential illegal powers are doing anything.

NeOmega, are you opposing an expansion of oppressive state powers? It is also like you are one of those conservatives who believe in small, limited government. How dare you! Be like the neocons, empower our Dear Leader!

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I see, so you are making claims that less plots than ever are being hatched against the US on US soil. Less so than say the same time period of the CLintonian years.

I think I have stated my point clearly, plenty of times.

Kudos to you. I suppose that means you have essentially dispelled the cannard about our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq causing more terrorists to rise up against the US. Or perhaps it simply means you are on the neocon bandwagon "Better to thave the fight over there than on our soil".

I think I have stated my point clearly, plenty of times. Twist as you wish.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by NeOmega


I have withdrawn my false claim, it doesn't matter, I still win.

Clinton had 5 years between terroist attacks during his term, Bush has had alot less than five years between, a lot, lot less.

Fair enough.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No No seriously. The point of bringing up the useless factoid of having no attacks on US soil over the course of x years and infering Clinton did the same or better means according to you that the "illegal" Bush programs don't mean "squat-piss-diddly".

That begs the questions

a) Did Clinton not face numerous significant threats and by extension you believe Bush likewise does not face threat. (And if that is the case does that mean that all the hullabaloo over breeding new terrorist by way of foreign shenanigans are hogwash)

b) Did Clinton face significant frequent threats and was more effective at detecting and intervening while Bush does not. (And if so, why, and likewise doesn't this imply Bush is not creating animus via foregin policy)

c) Did Clinton face infreqeunt threats whilst the Bush admin faces a greater number. And if so how has the Bush admin lucked into success without giving credit to investigative techniques?


Which is it?

[LordShiva]

Using chess metaphors while debating

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No No seriously. The point of bringing up the useless factoid of having no attacks on US soil over the course of x years and infering Clinton did the same or better means according to you that the "illegal" Bush programs don't mean "squat-piss-diddly".

That begs the questions

a) Did Clinton not face numerous significant threats and by extension you believe Bush likewise does not face threat. (And if that is the case does that mean that all the hullabaloo over breeding new terrorist by way of foreign shenanigans are hogwash)

b) Did Clinton face significant frequent threats and was more effective at detecting and intervening while Bush does not. (And if so, why, and likewise doesn't this imply Bush is not creating animus via foregin policy)

c) Did Clinton face infreqeunt threats whilst the Bush admin faces a greater number. And if so how has the Bush admin lucked into success without giving credit to investigative techniques?


Which is it?

It means exactly what I said it means. Just because no attacks have happened, does not mean it is time to bust out the champagne and declare victory. It took 8 years between WTC attack 1 and WTC attack 2.

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.

And Bush's illegal programs, have not proven to do anything, becaus e Al-Q works on a longer, more patient time line, than the American punditry, many of whom were declaring a great victory when the Hussein statue went down.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

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?

I thought your other points were well made, we just have different opinions and outlooks. I wanted to question your logic where I've bolded. The UK has not been on critical alert (highest status meaning a major attack is imminent) in relation to this or any plot for the whole of the last year, so I fail to see the weight in that particular argument. If your PM goes away on holiday and the status is raised to critical you'd rightfully expect your PM to return to base on such a notification.


If the plot was far enough along that pouncing was necessary then those arrested should be charged shortly. If they are then I will be gladly proved wrong in my cynicism.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dauphin


I thought your other points were well made, we just have different opinions and outlooks. I wanted to question your logic where I've bolded. The UK has not been on critical alert (highest status meaning a major attack is imminent) in relation to this or any plot for the whole of the last year, so I fail to see the weight in that particular argument. If your PM goes away on holiday and the status is raised to critical you'd rightfully expect your PM to return to base on such a notification.


If the plot was far enough along that pouncing was necessary then those arrested should be charged shortly. If they are then I will be gladly proved wrong in my cynicism.

I was responding to you about Blair having GONE on vacation. Now it seems you are talking about the date of his return. I suppose he should return. Or maybe hes on the point of retiring, and has effectively handed over to Gordon Brown. I dont know, Im just not enough of a cynic to think his staying abroad means the whole thing is a scam. Wouldnt his returning BEFORE the announcement have created panic? And the announcement took place after the plot was broken up, so maybe its not necessary to return.

Im not sure that imminent charges make sense. It may make sense to continue the investigation, and try to get people who are still at large first.

[Dauphin]

Whether he is away and the threat level is raised, or he goes away after, it makes little difference to the core fact that he is away and staying away when things are supposedly about to hit the fan. The way I worded my initial comment I appreciate the confusion.

Bringing charges does not mean the investigation ends, but releasing without charge within the alloted arrest-without-charge time would suggest that the intelligence gained when combined with the subsequent raids was not sufficient to demonstrate a clear and present danger or sufficient in collecting evidence of a well-developed operation, or sufficient even of demonstrating criminality.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by NeOmega


It means exactly what I said it means. Just because no attacks have happened, does not mean it is time to bust out the champagne and declare victory. It took 8 years between WTC attack 1 and WTC attack 2.

Who ever claimed victory over AQ?

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.

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.

From Newsweek
To an important degree, however, intelligence services around the world have managed to rise above local politics. They share the bond of fellow spooks (sometimes greased with cash: intelligence officers, particularly in the developing world, are often on the CIA payroll). The CIA relies heavily on so-called liaison relationships. Jordanian intelligence, for instance, is more likely to penetrate a terror cell than the CIA. American intelligence services still suffer from a dearth of Arabic speakers. At the FBI, surveillance tapes have sat for weeks before a translator can get to them. But the CIA has received secret help from some surprising sources—even the Syrian Mukhabarat has chipped in morsels of useful intel from time to time. American intelligence has been able to count on help from the security services of countries, like France and Germany, whose leaders publicly scorn the Bush administration.

And Bush's illegal programs, have not proven to do anything, becaus e Al-Q works on a longer, more patient time line, than the American punditry, many of whom were declaring a great victory when the Hussein statue went down.

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

Intelligence officials hinted that the Bush administration's secret warrantless surveillance operation was brought into play—"we used all the tools in the toolbox," said one. It may be that the NSA, the supersecret electronic spy agency, listened in on calls between Pakistan and Britain that were routed through the switching stations of American phone companies.

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

Obviously these yield no results whatsoever.