[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

Here's a reply from another forum to get the discussion rolling:

quote:

---

Originally Posted By Lanny_MacDonald
Something does not smell right here. This is the exact same plot that Ramzi Yousef proposed back in 1994 dubbed "Operation Bojinka" by western intelligence. Back then it was considered impossible to pull off as it took too many assets, too much technology, and too precise an on board detonation to work.

Yousef went as far as to attempt a proof-of-concept trial run by blowing up a flight bound for Japan (PAL 434). He boarded a flight in Manila, built his bomb while on the flight (consisting of a liquid explosive in a contact solution bottle and a digital watch), planted it under his seat and then de-planed in Cebu. The bomb detonated, killing the passenger in the seat, but not having enough explosive power to damage the fuel tanks in the plane and taking it down.

Authorities have been wise to this plot now for over a decade and sophisticated equipment to detect explosives. All of a sudden it becomes a serious threat? Terrorists are supposed to be on the run and they have now been able to pull together the plot that Yousef and a "functioning" al Qaeeda could not when they had the elements of suprise and invisibility working for them? There was no elevation in alert status and no bulletins of possible threats. You don't break a 50 person operation over night. There are warning signs when that's going to happen. Something just doesn't smell right.

---

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Flash Walken ]

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Flash Walken ]

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Flash Walken ]

They say that attacks were not imminent, but that they had to move now for undisclosed reasons.

As a skeptical lawyer that suggests that people may have been taking steps to back out and they had to move now to avoid allowing the defense that the terrorists had abandoned the plot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

I guarantee you that most people here would have dismissed it as totally far-fetched, unworkable and as all part of an elaborate plot to "manufacture consent".

---

Interesting contention. Don't think I agree.

For one thing the plan was farfetched and unworkable. There are basically three reasons that the plan worked despite being farfetched and unworkable:

1. Cockpit doors should have been reinforced and locked a long time ago.

2. The USAF should have been better prepared to intercept hijacked planes than they were.

and

3. there should have been air marshalls.

Unfortunately, it is considered bad form to criticize on these points too hard bcs that is considered as a form of blaming the victim, I think.

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucas:
"...Notice how the authorities had the coloured restriction signs already printed up and ready to go?..."

If your assertion is that this whole thing was planned, and that the airport authority had, as part of that plan, signs made up and ready to roll out as soon as the 'plot' was uncovered... well, if you are offering up these signs as evidence, that's pretty weak. My 5 year old can whip up signs just like that on our home computer using clip art, Microsoft Word and our bubble jet printer in about 10 minutes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If they could "invent" this whole conspiracy for political reasons, then why do you suppose that they didn't also plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq???

---

A lot depends on how closely they perceive they are being watched.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
. . . I'm betting against illegal wiretaps and 'message sifting', but I may end up being wrong.

---

1. I don't think that stuf is illegal in the UK.

quote:

---

Then again, just imagine if on Sept. 10, 2001 we read about 19 people being arrested because a plot was uncovered to highjack four planes using box cutters and fly them into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and the Capitol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If they could "invent" this whole conspiracy for political reasons, then why do you suppose that they didn't also plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
The fact that these clowns were caught so close to their goal (if the alleged claims are true) is actually an indictment against the effectiveness of the War on Terror (TM). Do U C Y? Obviously, the Necropublicans won't see why.

---

These guys would have been under surveillance for a long time, but the authorities waited to act until they felt they had to. The idea is to let the terrorists you know about lead you to terrorists you don't know about.

Counter-intelligence agencies do that with spies, and police do that with kiddie porn rings. If there is no urgent need to pick the guy up, use him for information to get further ahead.

quote:

---

Uh, perhaps they tried several times? The world was watching to closely for them to have successful plants. There was too much information flow, and anti-propaganda sharing going on.

---

Would it be harder than framing 21 people for a fictional terrorist plot, planting evidence to make them all look guilty, forging large quantities of surveillance recordings, and hoping like hell that none of them can produce a credible alibi?

I always judge the plausibility of a conspiracy theory based on the number of people who would have to be 'in the know'. It can't be a large number, otherwise somebody is going to say something. It's really really hard to keep secrets when there are people out there really interested in finding out the truth. Impossible if a lot of people know about the secret to begin with.

That's why there were no WMD plants. Too many people would have had to have been aware of the plan to acquire credible weapons, transport them, and hide them in a place that doesn't look suspicious. It might have been possible, but the fallout of getting caught made the risk nowhere near worth it.

Same thing here. Given how hard it would be to successfully fabricate something like this, I can't imagine the political gain being even close to worth the risk of getting caught faking it. While you never know if certain details are getting omitted or exaggerated, it's fairly safe to say the plot itself is the real deal.

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

quote:

---

The fact that these clowns were caught so close to their goal (if the alleged claims are true) is actually an indictment against the effectiveness of the War on Terror (TM).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
The fact that these clowns were caught so close to their goal (if the alleged claims are true) is actually an indictment against the effectiveness of the War on Terror (TM). Do U C Y? Obviously, the Necropublicans won't see why.

---

Even if you had a “perfect” war on terror, you still couldn’t protect against all terror actions (you could only help minimize them). So, the fact that this alleged terror plot was foiled in no way is an indictment of the war on terror. Many, many successful attacks would be an indictment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
It will be interesting to learn how the authorities learned of the plot. I'm betting against illegal wiretaps and 'message sifting', but I may end up being wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

It is far fetched. There is nothing about the 'official' 9/11 that is NOT far fetched.

---

quote:

---

I see it more as proof that internal security agencies can handle these types of threats and break up the plot prior... Why was there the need to invade when they can be handled like this? Could examples like this be used to counter those that beleive invasion of foriegn countries is the way to go to handle terrorists... There isn't the need to invade, we can handle sectuirty without the invasions?[/QB]

---

It doesn't really provide proof, though, because it happened in a context in which those countries were invaded. We can only speculate as to whether there would be more or fewer attacks if those wars hadn't happened.

Realistically, we have to expect that some percentage of attempted terrorist attacks will be successful, while the rest are foiled. Certainly the London subway bombings and the Madrid train bombings were not averted in this way.

Active counter-terrorism can reduce the risk of an attempted attack being successful, but is it possible that we can also somehow reduce the number of attempts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

Personally, I think that Martians, on the direct orders of the President, destroyed the towers on 9/11.

---

You're delusional. Everyone knows that the Vensusians are the real culprits. They just made it appear that the Martians did it, so that weak-minded suckers such as yourself will jump to the wrong conclusion.

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

So, on the one hand you are claiming that this action by the Brits is an “indictment” of the war on terror yet if those tools (wiretaps and message sifting) were used to foil this alleged terror plot, then by arguing in favor of eliminating the very tools that foiled the plot, you would actually be advocating for making the war on terror even less effective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

You're delusional. Everyone knows that the Vensusians are the real culprits. They just made it appear that the Martians did it, so that weak-minded suckers such as yourself will jump to the wrong conclusion.

I can't believe that you fell for it.

---

Finally, someone making sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
don't think you'd be laughing so hard if it was middle-class white guys being rounded up on dubious charges

---

quote:

---

Don't wait. Order your tin foil hat for you, for those you love today!
Free STEALTHY DELIVERY. Your anonymity guaranteed.
We will deliver tin foil hats anonymously for your protection to anyone you like in the United States. Tin foil hats are shipped flat in plain, unmarked manilla envelopes with an anonymous looking return address. The tin foil hat comes with complete instructions for safe and secure use.

Remember: THEY ARE SO OUT TO GET YOU.

---

web page

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
Would it be harder than framing 21 people for a fictional terrorist plot, planting evidence to make them all look guilty, forging large quantities of surveillance recordings, and hoping like hell that none of them can produce a credible alibi?]

---

Accusations are enough, it will be years before they are brought to trial and/or charges dropped, all they needed is the elevated fear level right now.

quote:

---

I always judge the plausibility of a conspiracy theory based on the number of people who would have to be 'in the know'. It can't be a large number, otherwise somebody is going to say something. It's really really hard to keep secrets when there are people out there really interested in finding out the truth. Impossible if a lot of people know about the secret to begin with.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
Illegal searches are not a part of the War on Terror (TM). They are ancillary programmes. They happen to be part of the Necropublican mindset, and would happily occur if the War on Terror (TM) did not exist. That said, I'll put a 95% probability on this plot being foiled because of an old-fashioned tip or two, though, and not because of some 24-inspired hallucinatory wet dream about "increased chatter on the channels".

---

You know, perhaps you’re right. Maybe the old-fashioned human intelligent revealed the plot and that lead to the saving of a thousand lives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

Would it be harder than framing 21 people for a fictional terrorist plot, planting evidence to make them all look guilty, forging large quantities of surveillance recordings, and hoping like hell that none of them can produce a credible alibi?
[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

---

You are making assumptions about what the evidence looks like here. We don't know what the evidence is here. Is the evidence any better than the "evidence" that convinced this same police dept that Menezes and Kahar were terrorists? Probably, but we don't know that yet. Whatever the evidence is, we won't know whether it would be hard to fake until we know what it is.

I think you are also making assumptions about how strong the evidence would have to be to get a plea bargain in an emotionally charged case like this. Moussaoui copped a plea to helping with 9/11 even though everybody (even his jury!) realizes he had no clue about 9/11 and did not help.

If you were the juror in this case, would you demand large quantities of surveillance recordings in order to find guilty?

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

They can start with my broker

---

Sure first they came for the brokers...

quote:

---

In a poll conducted for the Channel 4 television documentary, only half the British Muslims questioned said they thought of Britain as "my country," whereas nearly a quarter said they thought of it as "their country" -- meaning someone else's. The younger, the greater the alienation. Shockingly, one in three British Muslims between 18 and 24 said they would rather live under sharia law than under British law.

In a Pew poll of Muslims worldwide, a gob-smacking 81 per cent of British Muslims said they thought of themselves as a Muslim first, and a citizen of their country only second. This is a higher proportion than in Jordan, Egypt, or Turkey, and exceeded only by that in Pakistan (87 per cent). By contrast, only 46 per cent of French Muslims said they were Muslims first, compared with 42 per cent who felt themselves first and foremost citoyens.

Why is this? Here are a few possible explanations, none of which are mutually exclusive.
It may have something to do with the different regions from which French and British Muslims come. I find it suggestive that the only country to top the British score was Pakistan. And to where do most British Muslims trace their origins? Well, nearly half have their roots in Pakistan, and another quarter-million or so in India and Bangladesh. A very large number hale from just one region: Kashmir. Is there something about the particular religiosity of Kashmiri, Pakistani, and more broadly, South Asian Islam, and the way it develops in interaction with a European host-culture, as opposed to the Islam of the Maghreb, from which most French Muslims come?

Then, and most obviously, Tony Blair's Britain has been the most prominent ally of George Bush's America in the Washington-styled Global War On Terror, seen by many young Muslims as a Global War On Islam. By contrast, Jacque Chirac's France has positioned itself, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Lebanon today, as an opponent of the Global War On Terror/Islam, and in some measure a friend (or appeaser, to American and British neo-cons) of Muslims in general and Arabs in particular.

There is now overwhelming evidence that Prime Minister Blair's foreign policy, and especially the role of British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, has contributed very significantly to the alienation of British Muslims in general, and younger, better-educated ones in particular. In the Channel 4 poll, nearly one-third of young British Muslims agreed with the suggestion that "the July bombings [i.e. of London] were justified because of British support for the war on terror." That's truly shocking.

This doesn't mean Mr. Blair's foreign policy has been all wrong. For example, I believe that the intervention in Afghanistan was entirely justified, because the al-Qaeda terrorist network that demolished the twin towers was based in that failed state. The tragedy is that, instead of then devoting our resources to rebuilding Afghanistan, we rushed on to the neo-cons' war of choice in Iraq, thus creating two bloody failures instead of one possible success. But, whatever you think of the policies in detail, there is no question that they have angered young British Muslims.

I have always thought that the very undemanding vagueness, the duffle-coat bagginess of Britishness was an advantage when it comes to making immigrants and their descendants feel at home here. After all, what have you traditionally required in order to be British? An ability to talk about the weather at inordinate length. Being willing to mind your own business, to live and let live. A general inclination to obey the law of the land, more or less. Perhaps a mild interest in the Royal Family, football or cricket. That's about it. The very idea of talking about ourselves as "citizens" has seemed to the British vaguely pretentious and foreign, more specifically French -- and therefore bad.

---

quote:

---

Accusations are enough, it will be years before they are brought to trial and/or charges dropped, all they needed is the elevated fear level right now.

---

If they proclaim their innocence and protest they were framed, there will be pressure on the authorities to show they have convincing proof of this.

And to farces, yes, I am making assumptions about the evidence they have. I have trouble believing that they could be on to a plot like this and not have that kind of evidence. It seems to me that coordinating a terrorist plot would leave reams of evidence because there has to be communication, materials, planning, etc. If this stuff turns out to be circumstantial, then I'll be right there with you proclaiming a fraud.

quote:

---

Why? They have perpetrated hoaxes to start wars for hundreds of years with many people in the know, and never undeestimate how many people are part of the activities. I just a theory based on facts, lack of and plausibility.

---

Most of those hoaxes were never really secret, though. They were more like cheap facades. Casus belli shenanigans are usually transparent, but designed to put at a thin veneer of legitimacy on hostilities.

I'm fairly certain I'm right about people's ability to keep secrets. The company I work for has, over the last little while, been trying to keep product information from leaking out in advance of release dates. The effort has been serious: information has been restricted, people have been fired for indiscretion. And yet there have been dozens of media leaks and the release is still more than a month away.

Governments are the same. Any conspiracy that can't be done by a very small group of conspirators (I'd say less than 10), can't be done. Information is just too viscous a commodity to keep contained easily.

Maybe they should set up schools, let's call them "residential" schools, where they can take the children of those suspicious ferriners, and they can "kill the indian and save the man". That would assimilate the hell out "them".

------

Agree with your reply.... Though I think since there has been multiple attacks, the degree of anti-terrorism has risen substantially. If the 9/11 attacks had this degree of anti-terrorism to operate against, I'm not certain they would have occoured. Just as the Bush admin ineptly handled the preperation for Katrina, they ineptly handle anti-terrorism information that could have prevented those attacks

(9/11 cover-up bits... I beleive alot of the cover-up and contradictions within the offical story are ultimately just covering up how inept the Bush admin truely is... and not what actually occoured during the attacks)

quote:

---

I would be inclined to agree with you that the Iraq War did more to boost terrorism than to fight it. But I have to wonder if the loss of all those training bases in Afghanistan didn't set back Al-Qaeda considerably in terms of launching attacks.

---

Doubtful... In the case of 9/11, the terror suspects gained their training on US soil (besides, I doubt Al Qaeda Afghan bases will ever contain quality commercial flight tutorials ^^). London's bombings were homegrown... So I doubt there was little Afghan based involvement. The actual war in afghanistan and putting pressure on the Taliban won't do much for over seas terror, unless they start capturing/killing some of the leaders and plot masterminds. Most Taliban recruits aren't coming from Afghanistan either.

added:
Stockholm, thnx fer that lil snippet. Curious, does it make any mention to muslims living within Canada or the US? I'd imagine US and Britain would be very similar... Canada as well, but to a lesser degree.

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Any theories on why so-called home-grown terrorism seems to be a more significant issue in Britain? Do they do a poorer job assimilating?

---

The Okla City bombing.
Eric Rudolph and all the other abortion clinic bombers / shooters.
The ELF fires.
The anthrax attacks of 2001.

You might even argue that the 2002 El Al shooting was homegrown as the Egyptian had been living in the US for 10 years.

This doesn't even count the crazies, like the man in Seattle who shot up the Jewish Lobbying Organization, or the kid who flew the Cessna into the side of a building, or the kid in North Carolina who tried to run over co-eds.

This also doesn't count the terrorist attacks that have not been revealed to us as such. TWA FLT 800? Maybe. The 2001 Long Island plane crash? Maybe.

Accordingly, I question the premise of this question.

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

like the man in Seattle who shot up the Jewish Lobbying Organization

---

If he did not know, then he probably wasn't motivated by misogyny. Also, if you read about the guy and his recent baptism and prior mental problems, you tend to come to the conclusion that this guy did not really have any motivations except for unpredictably random, psychotic ones.

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Terrorists planned to use MP3 players and sports drinks to blow up as many as 10 jetliners bound for the United States, authorities said Thursday.

---

quote:

---

In the case of 9/11, the terror suspects gained their training on US soil (besides, I doubt Al Qaeda Afghan bases will ever contain quality commercial flight tutorials ^^). London's bombings were homegrown... So I doubt there was little Afghan based involvement. The actual war in afghanistan and putting pressure on the Taliban won't do much for over seas terror, unless they start capturing/killing some of the leaders and plot masterminds. Most Taliban recruits aren't coming from Afghanistan either.

---

Maybe... This is of course very speculative.

In the military there is this idea called rear-area destruction. It was developed by British military theorists in the interbellum between the two world wars, but the only person who really took notice was a German named Heinz Guderian who built a tactical doctrine on top of it, described in his book Achtung Panzer. The doctrine became known as Blitzkrieg.

The premise of rear-area attack, and Blitzkrieg, is to focus your attack neither on the enemy's troops nor his command. Instead, it is to puncture the enemy lines and get access to the supporting infrastructure that an army depends on. By moving quickly, you can disable communications and transportation infrastructure, effectively paralyzing the enemy. Nobody really understood how well it would work until the tactic was used to destroy the French Army in 1940. It worked so well because infrastructure is both vital to an army's function and very difficult to protect. Command can be protected easily because it is small, and the troops can protect themselves proportional to their numbers. But infrastructure is large and vulnerable.

This is what I think about sometimes with terrorism. You can't measure the success of an operation solely based on the number of commanders and followers captured or killed. Recruiting, training, planning, coordinating, transporting, and executing require more than just people. The terrorists have to have an infrastructure if they are to make anything happen, and I really think that that should be our main target in trying to fight terrorism.

quote:

---

The terrorists have to have an infrastructure if they are to make anything happen, and I really think that that should be our main target in trying to fight terrorism.

---

The infrastructure that can/should be targetted is the international fund raising... Which post 9/11 was targetted to some degree.

quote:

---

You can't measure the success of an operation solely based on the number of commanders and followers captured or killed.

---

field commanders and soldiers no. I guess if you kill enough soldiers new recruits may think twice? But in the case of a terror organization, there is the theory that if you cut off the head (or 2 heads) the remainder will fade out without their morale/spiritual leaders.

I guess as a targetable infrastructure, you could be going after the training grounds for the field commanders... With the commanders gone, single troops fighting on there own pose far less threat. But once again, I question how much infrastructure is needed for that and destroying one location just means another one can be setup elsewhere.

You seem to know your doctrines... How many are out there on how to root out guerilla based insurgency style fighters? As Israel is finding out, infrastructure based attacks is having only a tiny effect on Hizbollahs capabilities, and I'm seeing the potential for great loss on Israels side during a full scale land invasion. I'm curious as to which doctrines they may be relying on.

added:
Most doctrines I find only applicable for convetional engagement and not one facing a guerilla style enemy.

[ 10 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Subject: Heightened Airport Security

Increased security measures taken at Canadian Airports following UK bomb plot

Following this morning's developments in London, United Kingdom, Transport Canada has directed all Canadian airports to increase security measures.

As of 12:00pm EST all passengers are no longer permitted to carry liquids or gels on board any aircraft departing from Canadian airports destined to the United States and the United Kingdom. Exceptions include the following:
Baby formula, breast milk, or juice if a baby or small child is traveling;
Prescription medicine with a name that matches the passenger's ticket;
Insulin and essential other non-prescription medication.

Passengers currently in or travelling to the United States should be aware that they may be requested to remove footwear for additional screening prior to boarding.

For the duration of these measures, we advise all travellers to give themselves extra time when heading to the airport. Please check flight information on airport websites for the latest information and updates, or call your airline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farces:

The Okla City bombing.
Eric Rudolph and all the other abortion clinic bombers / shooters.
The ELF fires.
The anthrax attacks of 2001. . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maggie's Farmboy:
Actually, the police allegedly used a source who infiltrated the group of plotters. Wiretap evidence is not admissible in UK criminal trials:

---

I think admissibility of evidence in a trial was among the least of the investigators' concerns. They wanted to STOP the attack.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Like every other failed terrorist plot, this one will turn out to be complete and utter bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maggie's Farmboy:
After all the House of Lords said that prosecution is the most effective way to prevent terrorism.

---

The House of Lords is wrong. Prosecuting a terrorist (assuming he lives through the event) after an attack has occurred is NOT "the most effective way to prevent terrorism". Finding would-be terrorists before they act is the best way to prevent terrorism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Small Quibble: Nothing will "prevent" terrorism.

---

Whether there was or was not a "real" plot in the UK to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic Ocean, the reaction of airport "security" in Canada is a complete non-sequitur, and a transparent attempt to terrorize us all.

The alleged plot, insofar as details have been allowed to leak out, involves the smuggling of liquid onto aircraft in the UK (not Canada) bound for the USA (not Canada) at some point in the indefinite future (not today). There is no official allegation, much less a scintilla of evidence, that anybody on Canadian soil was involved in the alleged plot, or that anybody was planning, at any point in the near future (let alone on August 10, 2006), to smuggle liquid explosives onto a flight originating in Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Finding would-be terrorists before they act is the best way to prevent terrorism.

---

Small quibble: finding out and acting on the conditions that cause people to become so desperate/frustrated/angry as to start thinking about terrorism, is a better way to prevent terrorism.

quote:

---

Notice how the authorities had the coloured restriction signs already printed up and ready to go?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
As if we needed further proof that the hysterical paranoia around air travel is being deliberately manufactured by Bush and his proto-fascist cohorts...The charade of making passengers boarding aircraft in Canada divest themselves of...a thousand other things, has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft safety and security. It has absolutely everything to do with promoting the new culture of fear that will allow governments a free hand to further diminish our freedom and security and suppress anti-imperialist struggles around the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
Yes It is just racist, Islamophobiac reporting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

You know, perhaps you’re right. Maybe the old-fashioned human intelligent revealed the plot and that lead to the saving of a thousand lives.

On the other hand, if wire-tapping and message sifting were the reasons for saving those thousand lives, then…?

---

1. To catch unknown accomplices.

2. To create a media spectacle, and increase support for Britain's foreign policy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
The picture is starting to become clearer, and it leads me to one question: Why did they wait so long to arrest these people? They had an infiltrator in the group, and knew the plan. Surely, the would-be bombers collected the necessary chemicals prior to entering the airport. Why wait until they were in the terminal to arrest them? I can think of two reasons:

1. To catch unknown accomplices.

2. To create a media spectacle, and increase support for Britain's foreign policy.

One of these reasons makes me physically ill, given the risk it exposes air travellers to...

---

Or possibly because the airport is the one place you know they will all be going to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
One of these reasons makes me physically ill, given the risk it exposes air travellers to...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

Or possibly because the airport is the one place you know they will all be going to.

I don't think there was a lot of risk. If the bad guys somehow eluded them, they would have immediately grounded all flights anyway, taking away the terrorists' targets.

---

But again, looking at this case separately, what Proaxiom says above makes sense.

Either terrorists were really foiled, or this thing was well-staged with little solid trace of conspiracy.

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: evernon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
From today's Daily Mail:

"Terrorists were planning to unleash a series of deadly mid-air explosions on flights between London and America on August 16, it has been revealed today.
Members of the terror group, who were arrested in a series of raids by anti-terror police yesterday, were due to mount a dry run today to check if they could smuggle components for liquid explosives through Britain's airports.
United Airline tickets dated next Wednesday were found by police at the home of one of the raided addresses. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by evernon:
I shake my head in dismay. Twin towers brought down due to conspiracy, USA conspires to mass murder their own citizens, what rubbish!! That it is part of any discussion thread on this esteemed board diminishes Babble and all it stands for,

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: evernon ]

---

quote:

---

Over the past two years, I have compiled a database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 in all. This includes every episode in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while trying to kill others, but excludes attacks authorized by a national government (like those by North Korean agents against South Korea). The data show that there is far less of a connection between suicide terrorism and religious fundamentalism than most people think.

The leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27). Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.

What nearly all suicide terrorist attacks actually have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is often used as a tool by terrorist organizations in recruiting and in seeking aid from abroad, but is rarely the root cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

Every board has conspiracy kooks. Did you just get your first internet hook-up last week or something?

---

quote:

---

If it was staged, why was it done at this time?

---

I doubt it was staged, this would be simply the best time to do a bust... Infront of thousands of spectators (later millions after it's passed around medias), and catch the perpetrators right in the middle of a TRIAL run (from the media, this wasn't the actual bombing run, this was a test to see what they could get away with smuggling). So there wasn't a serious risk and good spotlight with the perpatrators caught in the act (I'd think it'd be easier in courts if you show evidence of them doing it, not just evidence of them saying they will)... Can't really time it better. If there was anything staged, it was the timing of the bust, and not the bust itself.

Evernon - The same US gov't that'd send thousands of it's troops to die in a foriegn country to opress it for oil wouldn't think twice. Democracies don't go to war unless they are afraid of something... So you either wait for something to frighten them or do it yourself. You're working off the basic assumption everyone has the same values you do... Obviously a nation that would use it's power at the UN to let the Israeli's bomb as many Lebanese citizens and Hizbollah as possible doesn't show much care for civilians. Obviously someone who makes money from the arms used to kill others would also have a different outlook on life than you.

quote:

---

USA conspires to mass murder their own citizens, what rubbish!!

---

A couple thousand sarficed to justify the post 9/11 world. You've seen what 'post 9/11' has been used to justify since. That would be a small sacrifice in many eyes. I get the feeling that theres 2 coverups working independantly, the first is the 'grand scheme' discussed here... And the second (operating completely unaware of the first) is the Bush Admin trying to hide their complete and utter incompetance regarding the matter (Very similar to the Katrina incident and covering up for the Bush Admin ignoring the warning signs and incompetance in handling the aftermath).

quote:

---

No I just hoped that Babble wouldnt fall prey to this idiocy.

---

You'd expect Babblers to take things as presented without questioning it? You haven't been a babbler for long. If the story presented wasn't flawed, there wouldn't be these questions

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Sure first they came for the brokers...

the lament of the tedious bourgeousie

---

Very good. We can't all be introspective Perfessors.Tedious as it is,someone has to take out the garbage.

Is there a leftbrain/rightbrain dichotomy here where this type of subject with its attendant conspiracy theories is attractive to one and tedious to the other?

quote:

---

The author makes the additional point that an extremist religious or secular ideology can be a useful indoctrination tool motivating a person to give up their own life in support of a cause.

---

quote:

---

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," he declared. "[Our] spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."

---

Don't get the wrong idea. We're only supposed to fear and loathe muslim extremists. Those religious kooks that have the ability to exterminate all life on earth in a nookyoolar fashion are perfectly okay.

quote:

---

USA conspires to mass murder their own citizens, what rubbish!!

---

quote:

---

USA conspires to mass murder their own citizens, what rubbish!! That it is part of any discussion thread on this esteemed board diminishes Babble and all it stands for,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gram swaraj:
Small quibble: finding out and acting on the conditions that cause people to become so desperate/frustrated/angry as to start thinking about terrorism, is a better way to prevent terrorism.

---

Assuming that is correct, that would be a very long-term approach to preventing terrorism. That being said, I think it’s foolishness to assume that we can make enough changes to satisfy the extremists. Even if the USA entirely disengaged from the Middle East, including withdrawal of all support for Israel, the extremists would still hate the West. Trying to appease the extremists in order to avoid terrorism is not going to be a winning stragegy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
I'll deal with that if it happens (5%).

---

It's probably drifting off topic, but you can't really defeat a guerrilla group if it's embedded in a supportive population. If you go defensive you lose. If you go offensive then you face the Chinese finger trap of having to inflict civilian casualties that in turn strengthen the guerrillas' support.

quote:

---

But in the case of a terror organization, there is the theory that if you cut off the head (or 2 heads) the remainder will fade out without their morale/spiritual leaders.

---

A dubious theory. It doesn't work with Hamas, apparently, since Israel assassinates their leaders all the time. I suspect it would work if the group is truly held together by a handful of strong people, but in a lot of cases the structure might be capable of producing a successor quickly.

As for infrastructure, the problem with terrorists as well as for conventional warfare is that the enemy tends to rebuild it quickly, usually finding alternatives means of getting things done. So you have to keep moving quickly, and accomplish objectives before they have time to reorganize.

quote:

---

I guess as a targetable infrastructure, you could be going after the training grounds for the field commanders... With the commanders gone, single troops fighting on there own pose far less threat. But once again, I question how much infrastructure is needed for that and destroying one location just means another one can be setup elsewhere.

---

Try to go through the mental exercise of building a global terrorist organization, and planning attacks. There are a great many challenges. The big ones are communication and transportation. These are harder than most people give them credit for.

quote:

---

Small quibble: finding out and acting on the conditions that cause people to become so desperate/frustrated/angry as to start thinking about terrorism, is a better way to prevent terrorism.

---

OK, so I guess we would need to start checking off all the items on the menu for these Islamofascist terrorists:

1. Institute Sharia law across the western world
2. Remove all all Jewish Israelis from Israel and force them to convert to Islam on pain of death.
3. Round up all homosexuals and have them burned alive
4. Institute the death penalty for any woman who fails to walk 20 paces behind a man.
5. Invite Osama Bin-laden to be Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as being the new King of Saudi Arabia.

oh no wait, isn't that what the terrorists are accused of doing?

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: zizou ]

quote:

---

OK, so I guess we would need to start checking off all the items on the menu for these Islamofascist terrorists:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
New rule: anyone who uses the term "Islamofascist" automatically loses all credibility since he reveals at best complete ignorance about the nature of fascism and at worst a complete unwillingness to engage on the subject of terrorism honestly.

---

Once upon a time the world was polarized along ideological lines: right vs. left, communism against capitalism, liberalism vs. the feudal system etc...

Now the whole world is basically polarized on one question. How do we want to treat women?

One half of the world says let's strip them naked and make them sex objects. The other half says let's wrap them in bedspreads and strip them of all human rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I'm still waiting for someone* to explain what connection this supposed terrorist plot had to do with Canadian airports.

*and I don't mean someone on babble giving us speculation, but someone who really has some hard facts to share.

---

The best you're going to get:

quote:

---

“(Transport Canada) didn't tell us why to impose the measures,” Peter Spurway, vice-president of corporate communications at the Halifax International Airport, said. “The presumption is there's a connection with what they found at Heathrow.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
It's really just ass coverage on the part of Transport Canada. Airline security people reason it's better to overreact than to underreact, so overreact they do. Most stuff they do doesn't make any sense.

---

quote:

---

Why don't they ask themselves "what can we do to stop the root causes of 'terrorism' and that way the 'west' will stop "attacking us"?

---

quote:

---

OK, so I guess we would need to start checking off all the items on the menu for these Islamofascist terrorists:

1. Institute Sharia law across the western world
2. Remove all all Jewish Israelis from Israel and force them to convert to Islam on pain of death.
3. Round up all homosexuals and have them burned alive
4. Institute the death penalty for any woman who fails to walk 20 paces behind a man.
5. Invite Osama Bin-laden to be Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as being the new King of Saudi Arabia.

I suppose that if the "western world" did all those things there might be a chance (small) that these acts of terrorism would end.

---

1. There has never been an attempt to force Shiriah law over Western population. What are you on? It's been us attacking and enforcing our views upon them.
2. So do you include the Sunni Muslim population that is exceedingly anti-Hizbollah (atleast the canadian ones?) Oh thats right, you still think an Arab is an arab is an arab don't you? Geez, could you imagine if the entire arabic world thought all of us were identical to Pat Robertson?
3. You speak of Islam law vs homosexuality as if it's different from American law.
4. Good generalization there. In Afghanistan, a Canadian female reporter in a small afghan town was taken by the locals out of town so she could remove her headdress and they could listen and bop around to their music. Oh whoops, I fergot that their all islamo-facsists.
5. Once again showing your sheer ignorance. Shi'a, in specic Hizbollah, HATE OSAMA BIN LADEN, condeming his attacks and condeming him. Al Qaeda offered them support, and Nasrallah rejected it entirely saying it adds credence to dispshits like yourself that still think all Arabs are the same.

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

3. You speak of Islam law vs homosexuality as if it's different from American law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
Is it a record for a thread to hit one hundred posts in less than 24 hours?

---

quote:

---

Show me where in American law, there is a death penalty for homosexuality???

---

quote:

---

5. Once again showing your sheer ignorance. Shi'a, in specic Hizbollah, HATE OSAMA BIN LADEN, condeming his attacks and condeming him. Al Qaeda offered them support, and Nasrallah rejected it entirely saying it adds credence to dispshits like yourself that still think all Arabs are the same.

[ 11 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ][/QB]

---

Of course most Muslims, especially those who live in Canada, do not have fascist inclinations and of course most of them do not want to die while trying ot kill Westerners. Of course there are people of other religions that are fascist and want to kill.

But, no one here can deny the reality that there are a group of people who use Islam and the Koran as justification for murder, totalitarinism, extreme sexism, homophobia, etc. People keep accusing Stockholm of being racist against Arabs. This isn't about race, it's about religious extremism. There are many white people who were indoctrinated into the same beliefs... Richard Reid (unsuccessful shoe bomber), 7/7 London bomber Germaine Lindsay, Muriel Deguaque (Belgium suicide bomber). That is why racial profiling would be the most ridiculous response to this fascist mindset (which is being taught to children as well).

However, the plotters were apparently allowed to continue their planning, unmolested, until suddenly, purportedly, this gang of wiz chemists and gadget designers dramatically went from null threat to operationally dangerous in a matter days forcing the issue of intervention.

So, just who was in control of this operation anyways?

We can see the Republicans are sure getting good mileage out of this, and what better time for it.

Stockholm how the hell would you know about evidence of mass discrimination based upon a few days? If you aren't gay and you're not from that area you cannot say there is not discrimination.

There is a big difference between life and death. Being gay in Iran means DEATH pure and simple and many, many people get summarily executed there on a aregular basis in front of cheering crowds.

EmmaG is right. I have no hositility towards Muslims. I have a major hostility towards religious extremists of any persuasion. I think that fundamentalist Muslims, hasidic Jews, Protestant fundamentalists, conservative Catholics and Hindu fanatics in India are all cut from the same cloth.

I have NOTHINg against someone for being Muslim. I'd happily break bread with people like Irshad Manji or Tarek Fatah. Just like i like United Church types and Reform Jews etc...

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Are you saying that once you peek behind the curtain, Canadian airline security is a sham? That the millions of dollars spent and thrown away, on August 10 alone, on a non-existent security threat, including the cost of cancelled and delayed flights and confiscated or discarded products, was for nothing? That Canadians who put up with this crap are just a bunch of sheep?

Just asking.

---

I'm actually less knowledgeable about Canadian airline security than American (because that gets a lot more coverage and analysis), but if our airline security is like theirs, then my answer is mostly yes.

I wouldn't say the threat is non-existent, just that a minority of the security measures put in place actually do any good in mitigating the threat. The emphasis is put on security measures that are visible, rather than on measures that are effective. Making people feel safer rather than really making them safer. And yes, a great many delays and missed flights have been caused for useless reasons.

The same story:
I went to Canada's Wonderland this year for the first time in quite a while (my oldest kid is just old enough to appreciate it now). There was a line up to enter, something I had never seen before. Why? Because they had installed metal detectors at the entrance.

My first observation was that if I was a psycho or a terrorist I would probably just put an assault rifle in a bag and toss it over the fence a few hundred yards away from the entrance. Then I'd go inside, go get the bag, climb on top of the mountain, and go postal.