Bush & Blair Knew & Both Went on Vacation; Is the Code Red Terror Alert Legitimate? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 08-10-2006, 08:56 AM

Quote:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...red_alert.html
Britain on red alert

By Jane Perrone / UK news/ World news 02:23pm

Had it gone ahead, the alleged terror plot to blow up transatlantic flights in mid-air would have lead to a loss of life on "an unprecedented scale", the home secretary, John Reid, has said.

As a result of the heightened terror threat, passengers at airports across Britain are facing flight delays and cancellations as police tighten security. You can keep track of all our coverage, including details of the latest travel restrictions, here.......

The interesting thing here is the overwhelmingly skeptical tone of the reaction to the "news".....in the comments posted by readers, below the article......Is the actual "crisis", about a terrorist plot. foiled by alert and able authorities, or about the loss of trust in and credibility of the national leaders in the UK and the US....Blair and Bush?

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207710,00.html
<b>Chertoff: Disrupted Terror Plot 'Suggestive of Al Qaeda'</b>
Thursday, August 10, 2006

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Thursday credited interagency coordination among the federal government and with British authorities for stopping a terror scheme that the secretary said is "suggestive of an Al Qaeda plot."

Meanwhile, the White House is calling the plot to blow up commercial flights in mid-air a "serious threat" to the United States and United Kingdom. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke overnight and last weekend as British intelligence discovered the scheme was imminent, Bush spokesman Tony Snow said. <h3>The two held phone calls while Blair is vacationing in the Caribbean and Bush is staying at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.</h3>

One senior U.S. counterintelligence official told FOX News that as many as 50 people were involved with this plot, which the official described as "the real deal." So far, 21 people have been arrested and British authorities say the "main players" are in custody......

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207766,00.html
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > FOX FAN SPEAKOUT
Foiled Terror Plot — Intelligence Victory?

Reaction on GOPUSA Forum:

Quote:

http://www.gopusa.com/forum/showthre...t=31430&page=3
London Police Disrupt Terrorist Plot to Blow Up Aircraft in Mid-Flight

What I'm presenting here is the wide chasm between those who accept that the elected administrations in the UK and the US have foiled a terrorist plot to blow up airliners in flight by sneaking liquids past airport screeners and on to planes, to be mixed into powerful explosives that are then detonated......

......and those who strongly suspect that this "alert" has more to do with distracting the masses in both countries from then events of the day (middle east foreign policy fueled violence, for example....) by "terrorizing" them with this absurd, "foiled plot" tale, with the goal of scaring the maximum numbers of potential voters, at the height of the summer travel season, by trotting out the first general, color coded, terror warning escalation in the U.S. since.....the months preceding the last U.S. federal elections.

IMO, the timing of this disclosure is very convenient to attempt to reverse the polling numbers results that show deterioration in the confidence of the electorate, in president Bush's party's ability to "keep us safe".....it is US officials who are linking this "plot" to al-qaeda.....just in time for a maximum impression to be created on the minds of potential voters during the kick off of the new campaign season.....after nearly two years of no terror alerts.

I wonder, if this is the "real deal"....why both Bush and Blair, "jetted off" on vacation, on the eve of the announcement of a partially foiled plot that is so potentially dangerous that it cripples all major UK airport hubs, and elevates the terror alert in the US, after a long period of relative quiet?

Ustwo · 08-10-2006, 08:59 AM

Lets just say, I was waiting for this post.

Thanks host.

powerclown · 08-10-2006, 09:45 AM

I think you missed the part where the planes never actually blew up.
Wouldn't that have been the logical time to advance a conspiracy theory?

roachboy · 08-10-2006, 09:51 AM

so let's see: any suspicion cast on the self-evidently political usages of public hysteria over "terrorism" amounts to a conspiracy theory? nice, folks: that means that either you take each and every "terror alert" entirely seriously or you are indulging in conspiracy.

great way to foster a debate on the question of the political usage of hysteria.

stevo · 08-10-2006, 10:04 AM

So because this happened before federal elections it is a "very convenient to attempt to reverse the polling numbers results that show deterioration in the confidence of the electorate"

Do you remember madrid march 11?

That was right before their elections.

It worked out in the terrorists favor. They blew up trains, killed hundreds of people, the Spanish voted out their current admin, replaced with an anti-US socialist government, pulled their military out of Iraq and the WoT.

Maybe al-qaeda thinks they could achieve more success with better timing of terrorist acts. Like prior to elections...and close to the 5th anniversary of 9/11.

...just wait for 8/22....well maybe I'll take that to paranoia.

host · 08-10-2006, 10:09 AM

Notice the differences between the reactions of those who post on the foxnews site, compared to the exchanges on the Guardian UK site. Would anyone who watches foxnews and reads the reader feedback on their website, be exposed to any idea or opinion that would conflict with their "knowing what they already know"?

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207766,00.html
Here's what FOX Fans are saying:

“This is absolutely a win for the intelligence communities. Hopefully, it will also serve as a wake-up call for the citizenry to let these intelligence entities do their jobs by covert surveillance and silence those that see conspiracy behind everything. The next essential step is for the intelligence communities, governments, and ordinary people to correctly name these terrorists as Islamic radicals and seek them out overtly.” — Deb (North Carolina)

“It’s a bit early to declare it a victory. British intelligence has had its fair share of problems in their attempts at rounding up terror suspects and thwarting plots. Let’s see what we learn over the next couple of days, and not be too eager to declare victory before the real fight is over.” — Michael (New York)

“Yes, I think this is truly an intelligence accomplishment and proves that cooperation between agencies worldwide is critical. I understand fully the need to restrict or control the carrying on of liquids on aircraft.” — Bob (Fort Pierce, FL)

“This is definitely a victory for Western civilization against Muslim extremism. There are many plots foiled by intelligence agencies of which the public will never know. This is a great collaboration of countries working together for one cause. Obviously, trying to win over the hearts and minds of these despicable evil fanatics is futile.” — Sheila (Queens, NY)

“This is a victory of a single battle. The war is not over. We need to win more battles to win the war.” — Mike

“I definitely think this a huge win for U.S. and British intelligence.” — Jeff (Okemos, MI)

“Not a victory by a long shot. Victory means the state of having won a competition or battle. We haven't won anything yet! This is not a competition. It will be a long time before victory can actually be obtained.” — Brett

“Any day terrorists are caught before they can enact their destructive actions is a good day. So, yes, it is a definite victory for intelligence agencies.” — Jerry

Quote:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...red_alert.html

Well Valeska, one could equally use that argument to defend Blair, saying that all Iraqi deaths blamed on him are OK, cos they had to die anyway. Interesting as a philosophical point, but useless in a political argument!
Posted by BlueJam on August 10, 2006 06:00 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

Sensei. I would agree that people who accept the Government line without question are sheep. I would also suggest those that just put their head in their sand in the face of a clear and present danger are ostriches.

Let's wait and see what the investigators find before rushing to judgement.
Posted by ThomasY on August 10, 2006 06:14 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

Valeska -

I was being a bit cynical - I�m definitely not trying to justify deaths or murders on the back of world population increases. My point was that they are ALL hugely important issues and can�t in my view be morally argued across. I would never say that it would ok if Bob the Builder down the road was gunned down because another million humans will be replacing him in the next (working) week. Although I note that Tony, George and Ehud often use this numerical justification � we are killing a few X tens of thousand innocent people in Iraq / Afghanistan / Palestine / Lebanon so that Y number of people will be saved (according to their rhetoric) in the future.

The figures might give some perspective but I reckon police executions, scented candles, smoking, suicide bombings, car accidents, Aids and global warming are all problems that need to be solved. Stopping a bomb in Lebanon, or in a plane shouldn�t prevent saving an Aids patient ... or am I being naive?
Posted by whattale on August 10, 2006 06:16 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

So While Tony is away on his airbed 'COBRA' has swung into action to save the nation. Don't worry folks our safety from the Islamic Facists that are thretening to overwhelm us, is secure in the hands of an alcoholic Scot and a womanising overweight buffoon. It's the Rab C Nesbitt and Jabba the Hut show! God help us all.
Posted by deadchild on August 10, 2006 06:17 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

Bluejam, the difference between us is that you think the police always act for the best in this the best of all possible worlds, that strange foreign people are very suspicious and probably murderous savages, that any one who thinks differently from you is probably not really human, and it's their fault anyway. I don't.

If only a tenth of the "police contact" deaths were caused by carelessness or ill will, they would still equal terrorism deaths. I'm sure that more than 1% of RTAs are caused by carelessness.

If you cause someone's death by an action where you didn't give a fig for the consequences, you're just as guilty as if you did it deliberately.

You may be a very genial character in real life, that I could have a good crack with down the pub. You clearly believe in our politicians as well as our police. All I can say is, you never learnt that it is not safe to hoist to windward.
Posted by madmustelid on August 10, 2006 06:18 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

ThomasY - I haven't rushed to judgement - I said I was reserving it. But don't you think the scepticism is justified? Just a little bit?

I have no time for facism no matter what religious flag flies above it, but we shouldn't let politicians exaggerate the threat in order to manipulate us. And I don't think that qualifies as a conspiracy theory. Does anyone really believe politicians aren't manipulative?
Posted by sensei on August 10, 2006 06:28 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

I agree that many lives may well have been saved today by the security field agents (Apologies it's an old detective novel). But why do the security agencies seemingly lack intelligence? I know it�s easy with hindsight but surely those thousands of security people whose jobs/careers etc are based on it could have / should have thought of these risks (the access of passengers to cockpits before 9/11, to shoe bombs being brought aboard planes, the use of flammable liquids?) AND thought of simple solutions to mitigate the risk BEFORE these types of plans were devised by those with malicious intent.

Posted by whattale on August 10, 2006 06:43 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

I think the following says it all. Until such time that the Muslim leadership steps up and accepts that these acts are in fact done by Muslims and begin to condemn these things there will be no end. Muslims are quick to play the blame game when they can point to someone else - but the refuse to accept the fact that the fault is theirs and theirs alone.

The quote:

Dr Mohammad Naseem, chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque, said he remained circumspect about the basis on which today's arrests were made. "With the track record of the police, one doesn't have much faith in the basis on which people are detained," he said.

"And it poses the question whether the arrests are part of a political objective, by using Muslims as a target, using the perception of terrorism to usurp all our civil liberties and get more and more control while moving towards a totalitarian
Posted by WillieC on August 10, 2006 06:48 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

The cynicism and distrust of our governments is an absolute pleasure to read.

To those of you who wish to give Bush /Blair the benefit of the doubt:

please don�t forget that most of the terror alerts since 2001 have turned out to have very little factual basis.

We simply do not know who did what on 911 , or indeed what exactly happened.

As for the July bombing�well why does Blair refuse and open investigation if he has nothing to hide.

This alert is probably just bull to keep the public terrified and backing Blair
Posted by cjrr on August 10, 2006 06:49 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

Madmustelid: "Bluejam, the difference between us is that you think the police always act for the best in this the best of all possible worlds, that strange foreign people are very suspicious and probably murderous savages, that any one who thinks differently from you is probably not really human, and it's their fault anyway."
I think none of these things! Neither have I written anything to suggest that I do! Perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone else's.

I was merely questioning your grasp of statistics. You seem to deny that ANY deaths caused by police might be justifiable, whereas I never denied that every accidental death or death caused by incompetence was at best a tragedy and at worst something that compelled harsh investigation.

I never mentioned 'strange foreign people' or 'murderous savages'. Perhaps these are your own views. If so, shame on you.
Posted by BlueJam on August 10, 2006 06:50 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

The cynicism and distrust of our governments is an absolute pleasure to read.

To those of you who wish to give Bush /Blair the benefit of the doubt:

please don�t forget that most of the terror alerts since 2001 have turned out to have very little factual basis.

We simply do not know who did what on 911 , or indeed what exactly happened.

As for the July bombing�well why does Blair refuse and open investigation if he has nothing to hide.

This alert is probably just bull to keep the public terrified and backing Blair
Posted by cjrr on August 10, 2006 06:51 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

Any one believing in terror alerts should check out the fake terror alert archive

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_...or.html#alerts
Posted by cjrr on August 10, 2006 06:55 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.

There actually seems to be a discussion going on at the Guardian UK site. Some defend the government line....others question it, and provide support for why they do so.

At foxnews, there is no "dialogue".....the comments are all alike, and, IMO, they could have been written by someone at the RNC, DHS, or by an intern in Karl Rove's office. The contrast in the posts at the two sites is the uniformity and predictability at the "closed loop" that is the foxnews reader feedback page, vs. the "anything goes", universe of opinion at the Guardian UK page.
It's too bad that it has to be one way, or the other.

I'm amused at the reaction to what some of us post on these threads, coming as such a "shock" to folks who come from the "closed loop" world, on the fringe of the open universe of diverse opinion.

Ustwo · 08-10-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so let's see: any suspicion cast on the self-evidently political usages of public hysteria over "terrorism" amounts to a conspiracy theory? nice, folks: that means that either you take each and every "terror alert" entirely seriously or you are indulging in conspiracy.

great way to foster a debate on the question of the political usage of hysteria.

host is advancing a conspiracy theory, the theory is that this latest terror threat was somehow contrived to help Bush/Blair politically. Its not real you see, its just to control those masses.

Buildings fall down, Bush did it.

Planes don't blow, up Bush did it.

A bear shits in the woods, Bush did it.

It becomes a tiresome pattern, and unworthy of debate. I'm sure the first thing that went through most tfp leftwingers minds today wasn't 'I'm glad they got them before they killed innocent people', but 'damn this will help Bush politically'. I was waiting for a conspiracy post, and we got it. This time it involves two governments working together to dupe those masses, in order to win elections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

...just wait for 8/22....well maybe I'll take that to paranoia.

Why? Do you see a difference between it and paranoia lately?

filtherton · 08-10-2006, 10:21 AM

I think that the terror alert system has been used as a political tool much more than it has ever been used as an actual terror alert system. This current instance seems like one of the few times where the terror alert system actually had something to do with actual terrorism.

stevo · 08-10-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Why? Do you see a difference between it and paranoia lately?

no...but I was waiting for you to post that...

roachboy · 08-10-2006, 10:30 AM

screw it, this is not worth my time.

if ustwo and stevo want to divert yet another debate away from anything like content and onto barely concealed ad hominems directed at host then have at it.
no matter, i guess, that you diminish the forum in the process.

host · 08-10-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

host is advancing a conspiracy theory, the theory is that this latest terror threat was somehow contrived to help Bush/Blair politically. Its not real you see, its just to control those masses.

Buildings fall down, Bush did it.

Planes don't blow, up Bush did it.

A bear shits in the woods, Bush did it.

It becomes a tiresome pattern, and unworthy of debate. I'm sure the first thing that went through most tfp leftwingers minds today wasn't 'I'm glad they got them before they killed innocent people', but 'damn this will help Bush politically'. I was waiting for a conspiracy post, and we got it. This time it involves two governments working together to dupe those masses, in order to win elections.

Why? Do you see a difference between it and paranoia lately?

"host" is advancing the same ole "mantra"....over and over and over, again.
It is a simple question.....<b>"how do you know what you know"?</b>

On what basis can you be so certain about so many things, that to me, there can be no certainty about.....due to agendas, ambitions, and contradictions that cloud the potential for certainty. The less transparent governments of the US and the UK conduct affairs, and the less free that they reshape our respective societies to be permitted to be.....the more "certain" you seem to be about what they tell you they are doing.

The other curious contradiction, aside from your growing "certainty" that seems supported by less and less transparent "input", is your anger. If I was as certain as you are, about what is going on in the world, I would exhibit a blissful state, compared to the state of growing confusion and frustration that I wade through now.

stevo · 08-10-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

screw it, this is not worth my time.

if ustwo and stevo want to divert yet another debate away from anything like content and onto barely concealed ad hominems directed at host then have at it.
no matter, i guess, that you diminish the forum in the process.

I thought my first post outlined my arguement pretty well. it was ignored pretty well too. oh well. I guess posting paranioa in the politics forum diminishes the forum in the process.

Seaver · 08-10-2006, 10:45 AM

Host, when the dozen people who would obviously be completely innocent (according to your conspiracy theory) get their time in court it'll be your proving ground. Unless you believe that Blair and Bush would falsely imprison a dozen people for political purposes... and have enough power to actually do so, this will convince you. Then again you believe that Bush killed everyone on 9/11... so not much of a stretch.

Until then your evidence doesn't qualify as legitimate.

Ustwo · 08-10-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Until then your evidence doesn't qualify as legitimate.

Its not evidence, its classic cognitive dissonance.

Events like the above question hosts and others world view, the events must be shaped to fit that world view. Real terrorists and a real terroist threat does not fit what they want to believe, therefore the events are modified to allow them to maintain their world view.

host · 08-10-2006, 11:31 AM

What I object to and scoff at is not the pursuit, arrest, or announcement that a terrorism "plot" was "foiled". I am skeptical about the "spin" that is designed to tighten control of the populace and their thinking. The tactic is politically motivated propaganda to instill fear and then to ratchet it up, whenever approval of the "leadership", sags in the polls.

IMO, there was no need to do more than screen passengers and their carry on belongings, more closely and thoroughly, in response to the liquid explosives plot. If there was a danger of the potenitial that the UK and US governments have the media and the color coded "warning" systems blaring out at us today,
and the mass disruption of travel, why are both leaders, who knew of the "plot" before they left for vacation, not at work, spearheading the "lockdown" that they've now executed?

How many times do these leaders, "cry wolf", before the robotic certainty, posted at the foxnews site and at the GOPUSA site, gives way to something representing rational thought and deliberation, curiousity, and questioning of authority.

How accurate did Cheney's hype turn out to be? Didn't we suspect what Tom Ridge finally admitted, before he finally said it?

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...060623-11.html
June 23, 2006

Vice President's Remarks at a Luncheon for Congressional Candidate Dave McSweeney
Hilton Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

......And of course, this morning the Attorney General held a press conference which I was watching as I came in on the plane to Chicago to announce the arrest of seven individuals in a cell in Miami, plotting among other things an attack on the Sears Tower here in Chicago. It is a very real threat. There are still people out there who are trying to do everything they can to kill Americans. We have to defend ourselves against that threat.........

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...e-alerts_x.htm
Posted 5/10/2005 11:21 PM

Ridge reveals clashes on alerts
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.

Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "

Yesterday...last week....last month....when presumably, there was more uncertainty about the nature and the risk potential of the "plot", there was no lockdown of the passengers, no color coded terror alert....but now, with the governments telling us that the "masterminds", and many of the plotters, but possibly not all.....are in custody....when the most is known of the plot specifics, up till now...it is somehow necessary to spew code red and code orange alerts, and bar all carry on items....but only on certain flight routes?

C'mon.....THINK!

powerclown · 08-10-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I am skeptical about the "spin" that is designed to tighten control of the populace and their thinking.

I'm sure you are aware of what happens when the opposite occurs - when actual events occur (they do, don't they?) - and people start pointing fingers at someone/anyone, politicians get involved, and the thing turns into a political charity event, as in Katrina, 911.

Maybe its all in accordance with the Founding Fathers in their advocating for a system of checks and balances. Maybe they weren't only speaking judicially. Better some level of public concern, than no level of concern, as in a totalitarian system.

Elphaba · 08-10-2006, 04:22 PM

A legitimate question/poll is posted with an opinion given (with relevant background material), and once again Ustwo attempts to derail any potential dialogue with a subtle mocking of Host. To what purpose other than a personal vendetta or simply taking pleasure in the role of troll, do you bother to post here?

Ustwo, your absence from the Politics forum may have gone without notice, but your return with the same old BS screams your presence. Has it occurred to you that issues of a political nature do not revolve around you and your world view?

Host, in response to your OP:

I have yet to vote on this one because I am going to wait for a few days to see what other information may surface. The highly questionnable announcements in the media this year of disrupted terrorist activities in the US, causes me to remain skeptical.

The obvious psyops behind the recent arrests in the US have done a great disservice to any legitimate claim to the disruption of terrorist cells. Did you notice the report the prior day that the US turned back a British flight because two passengers on the "do not fly" list were discovered? If the Brit's were already on top of this group, and the arrests made because the acquisition of flight tickets was in progress...doesn't that seem a bit pat?

We shall see.

keyshawn · 08-10-2006, 04:55 PM

I don't know if I'll jump in this fest, eh, what the hell, I guess.

I'll tackle the vacation first:

One viewpoint could be that:
The fact that they were on vacation that was some possible miscommunication occured between the intelligence officials and the executive offices of when this takedown was going to occur and caught Tony, George, and the crews off guard.

Or another (one, that as of now, I find the most plausible) that the SY was keeping Blair and his right-hand men abreast of the situation everyday or so; and SY let him know that the takedown was imminent (but they don't have to get his explicit approval to go in and make the arrests, do they ?!) and he figured that they [intelligence departments for each state] 'll take care of it and if he needs to come back to the home office early and make a press conference or two, and some meetings, he will. (Same goes for George).
I assume that both offices have contigency plans ready (although I definitely acknowledge that they are NOT foolproof) in case something like this happens; and have a general guidelines of things to do.

As for the Terror Alerts,
I think its purpose is to give the public the notion that the government is doing something about it.
(The intelligence agencies realize that the public wouldnt be happy in either case: one case being the overt security measures that are now in place, and the other being that if they did not take another action and in the possible, but not probable, some other terrorist event happened, the entire public would demand for the resignations of Blairs, bush, and the intelligence departments for not stopping things.

(I understand why the terror alerts exist, although I personally do not agree that they are the best and most appropriate actions to take.)

As for this attack's effects on the political landscape, I think both of the American political parties use whatever news that they can get ahold of to support their points.

[To be honest, I feel resigned from participating in this thread since not much substantial dialogue has occured yet, but I'll contribute my brief thoughts.

As for the poll question, Host, I'm having trouble understanding what 'genuine' means in this context, if you could explain a bit more, I'll understand the question and make a response

regards,
keyshawn

samcol · 08-10-2006, 05:02 PM

I picked the second option just because they've done numerous fake terror alerts before so I immedietely have to question this one. That doesn't mean they won't use a patsy to really blow something up though.

Ustwo · 08-10-2006, 05:25 PM

Guys welcome to the information age. Being on vacation these days means nothing when you deal with information and orders. What should they be doing, sitting in their offices, staring at a red phone? Its August, the people in charge of dealing with the terrorists were doing their job, you take some time 'off' which again these days means you just get out of the spotlight for a few days. I doubt there ever is a real day off for either Bush or Blair.

Elphaba · 08-10-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Guys welcome to the information age. Being on vacation these days means nothing when you deal with information and orders. What should they be doing, sitting in their offices, staring at a red phone? Its August, the people in charge of dealing with the terrorists were doing their job, you take some time 'off' which again these days means you just get out of the spotlight for a few days. I doubt there ever is a real day off for either Bush or Blair.

Well, gee. Another effort to demean anyone who choses to post to this topic, while providing no useful content, comment or effort to move the discussion forward.

Bush's time "off", whether it be 911 or Katrina, is well documented, and to date, exceeds any other president. Do you really want to go down that road, Ustwo? Or do you simply wish to continue your insults to the TFP members?

cyrnel · 08-10-2006, 07:47 PM

Could it be that a different set of security protocols exist while on "vacation" that enable more flexibility? While it seems a bit daft to repeatedly go on vacation when things hit the fan, it could help explain the repeat nature of this gaffe. It also relieves some amount of explanation. Instead of "We high-tailed it to the bunker," the message becomes "We were in our triply reinforced subterrainian ski-lodge celebrating Dick's anniversary."

As for the alert level I believe it would be very hard to resist using them as political tools. Could be real, could be manipulation. This time? How do we know? If I were OBL it'd be a good time of year to cause a commotion. If I were Bush, same deal. I'm just glad my job doesn't require lots of air travel. That has become a royal PITA.

Mephisto2 · 08-10-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm sure the first thing that went through most tfp leftwingers minds today wasn't 'I'm glad they got them before they killed innocent people', but 'damn this will help Bush politically'.

Well, what's the point in posting that comment?

I'm a TFP member. And I'm what you (at least) would consider left wing.

Why makes you think that I considered this news would help Bush & Blair, rather than being happy they caught the accused terrorists?

That's not presumptuous. It's actually insulting. For what it's worth, I'm very happy they caught them.

Mr Mephisto

Willravel · 08-10-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I doubt there ever is a real day off for either Bush or Blair.

Yes, because Presidenting has more to do with rangling cattle, hunting, playing with your dog, and golf than things like vetoing. So when do I get my 5 week vacation?

Meawhile, I have to take all terror threats with a grain of salt. This could be true, but until we actually see our government release the intel they have (never gonna happen, we still don't even have the proof of the money trail for 9/11, which Condolezzaliesalot promised), there is no way to know. So which way do I err? Not the side of the current US and UK administrations.

Seaver · 08-10-2006, 08:14 PM

Well the information will come out in the ensuing trials. If they are all found innocent your questioning will be founded. If not will you assume it's another conspiracy?

Willravel · 08-10-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Well the information will come out in the ensuing trials. If they are all found innocent your questioning will be founded. If not will you assume it's another conspiracy?

Well that depends on the trials. I would hope they would be public, I would hope that they have lawyers that don't have their thumbs up their asses. I would hope that the judge isn't a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, someone that spent three years on the President George H. W. Bush's National Security Council, and worked closely with Bush NSC advisor Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her (you know, like Philip D. Zelikow, the executive staff director of the 9/11 commission).

There is prescedent to make the consideration of foul play more than just a wild conspiracy theory when dealing with Bush or Blair.

Also, I never assume anything is a conspiracy. I do research and then come to a conclusion.

Ustwo · 08-10-2006, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Well, what's the point in posting that comment?

I'm a TFP member. And I'm what you (at least) would consider left wing.

Why makes you think that I considered this news would help Bush & Blair, rather than being happy they caught the accused terrorists?

That's not presumptuous. It's actually insulting. For what it's worth, I'm very happy they caught them.

Mr Mephisto

If the shoe fits.....

Based on the 10-7 fit, I think I'm pretty well dead on, one of the posters even said they would think that they would go as far as stage an attack to gain in elections(of course this poster also thinks 9/11 was staged). I think 'most' is not an unfair assumption here in the least. Most does not mean all, and I'm glad you are happy they were caught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Well, gee. Another effort to demean anyone who choses to post to this topic, while providing no useful content, comment or effort to move the discussion forward.

Bush's time "off", whether it be 911 or Katrina, is well documented, and to date, exceeds any other president. Do you really want to go down that road, Ustwo? Or do you simply wish to continue your insults to the TFP members?

Interestingly the news showed stills of the 'war room' Bush was in to talk with Blair on Sunday as this was going down. You are a testy one though, and this 'vacation' thing is something of a overblown joke, but if you would like to go down that road, be my guest, I'm sure its been written about on truthout and you can post another link for us.

I'd like for you, in going down this road, to explain what more can be done in the whiteshouse that can't be done on Airforce I or any place with a modern secure communications set up.

Dilbert1234567 · 08-10-2006, 10:59 PM

I think the terror alert was raised because the people who can raise it truly believe there is a threat. HOWEVER, I think this ‘threat’ may be little more than some a video clip of some battlefield 2 game play with some audio from team America world police on top.

Mephisto2 · 08-10-2006, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'd like for you, in going down this road, to explain what more can be done in the whiteshouse that can't be done on Airforce I or any place with a modern secure communications set up.

It's a well known and ongoing issue for world leaders who go on vacation, or do not return to the centres of power, during crises.

It's not a case of "I can do anything from my ranch", but more of a "I take things seriously, and as leader of the nation, my place is in the capital being seen to lead".

History, even recent history, is replete with examples of leaders being criticized (rightly in my opinion) for not being where their public wants and expects them to be during crises.

Quote:

If the shoe fits...

Erm... I don't really understand this comment. Whilst I am a fan of much of American culture, I'm not familiar with all your idioms.

Are you insulting me again?

Mr Mephisto

host · 08-11-2006, 12:10 AM

IMO, the greatest threat faced by the greatest numbers of residents of the UK and the US is not from, as the political officials in those two countries want you to fear it is......the threat of attacks by "terrorists" (in response to the announced Aug. 9, "foiling" of the "terror plot" US president Bush called them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism">"Islamic facists"</a> ), but from the agenda of the politcal officials themselves.

The greatest threat that my research causes me to suspect that we face, is an "officially" sanctioned, propaganda campaign that is intent on diminishing the rights and authority of "the people", by scaring and intimidating them into "giving it up" to the officials who are coordinating the "fear based", propaganda campaign. Follow the track record of the "leaders"; their pronouncements, the lucky "coincidences" that surround the "timing" of terror "alerts" and announcements of "progress" in the "WoT".....coincidences that too often seem to occur at opportune times, for the benefit of the "leaders" in the areas of reversing sagging polling trends, influencing voters to favor the campaigns of the "leaders" on the eves of elections that are important to them and their political allies, and then "disappear", when there is no immediate agenda that requires reinforcing the "fear" into the public psyche.

On the very "eve" of the latest "terror alert", the message was clear: DO NOT QUESTION or CRITICIZE GOVERNMENT SECURITY OFFICIALS:
On Aug. 9, 2006, the day before the terror plot was foiled,
British Home Secretary John Reid:

Quote:

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/2006...3513d4b82d.htm
....In a speech to the think tank Demos, John Reid said many in Britain had failed to grasp the scale of the terrorist threat.

"I make this point about the requirement for a fundamental understanding of the nature of the struggle in which we're engaged," he said.

"It will be wide, it will be long, it will be deep and it will be difficult.

"Our adversaries in international terrorism are completely unconstrained.

<b>"The international terrorists of today are ruthless and unconstrained in every direction, including in their attempts to misuse our freedoms to undermine our free society."

Saying that terrorists were abusing "great strengths" like the free media and ease of travel, he said: "They endeavour to drain our morale through the misuse of our freedoms</b> by misrepresenting every mistake or over-reaction as if it is our primary or real purpose."

"We should not allow ourselves to be seduced by the terrorist who urges [us] to be the quickest to condemn our security forces and police on every occasion and the slowest to understand the problems they face in tackling a new and unconstrained enemy," Reid added.

<h3>Comment from host: Consider that the previous comment by Reid, warns that, if you question or criticize the government "security forces and police on every occasion", you are "seduced by the terrorist". IMO, Reid offers only two choices....seduction by the government, or by the terrorist, but certainly no choice for "healthy skepticism".....</h3>

<b>Warning that Britain may have to give up some of its freedoms in the short term in order to protect them in the long term,</b> the home secretary said the government's terrorism legislation had proved necessary despite the opposition it has met from parliament, the judiciary and the press.

"In spite of these changes we remain unable to adapt our institutions and legal orthodoxy as fast as I believe we need to," he also warned.

"The nature of organised crime, social breakdown in parts of our community, not to say the threat of global terrorism bent on mass slaughter means <b>traditional civil liberty arguments are not so much wrong as made for another age.</b>

"We are in some ways attempting to fight a 21st century struggle with a framework of thought, culture and international legality which was provided for the mid-20th century."

<b>He said human rights laws were designed to protect the individual from states with "fascist inclinations", whereas the challenge today was a threat to society from "what might be called fascist individuals".</b>

Reid also said terrorism was a challenge faced by everyone in Britain. "Our common security in this country can only be assured by a common effort from all sections of society," he said.

Rachel Briggs from Demos welcomed his comments, but said she was not convinced the government was prepared to make compromises to involve others in improving security.....

She said: "The big message was the need to move beyond this outdated idea that security is something governments do to us or impose on us.

"It needs to understand that if it talks about genuine partnership that doesn't mean dictating to people."

Briggs said Demos' research found the government had squandered goodwill in Muslim communities after July 7 by "giving them no space for their own voice".

Reid's "message", IMO was clear: We are scaring you into a state where you will stop asking any questions, and you will give up some of your freedom for the duration of a long, long war, so that "we", your government officials, can protect you from "terrorists", until "we" decide that it is "safe" to return some of the civil liberties that we convinced you to "give up"....someday.....

It is clear to me that there is a high probability that the following is an accurate assessment of what has actually happened (happening) in the US:

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/prin...211369,00.html
Friday, Jul. 07, 2006
Toying With Terror Alerts? In the Bush era, the timing and quality of "arrests" and "warnings" have a suspicious ring
By JOSHUA MICAH MARSHALL

In these perilous days, we must be ready to think the unthinkable. No, I don't mean the possibility of a catastrophic terrorist attack. After 9/11, that's all too easy to imagine. No, I'm talking about a thought that even now seldom forces its way into respectable conversation: the quite reasonable suspicion that the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP's poll numbers.

Now, I'm a respectable columnist. I don't want to draw rolled eyes. But think about it.

The 18 months prior to the 2004 presidential election witnessed a barrage of those ridiculous color-coded terror alerts, quashed-plot headlines and breathless press conferences from Administration officials. Warnings of terror attacks over the Christmas 2003 holidays, warnings over summer terror attacks at the 2004 political conventions, then a whole slew of warnings of terror attacks to disrupt the election itself. Even the timing of the alerts seemed to fall with odd regularity right on the heels of major political events. One of Department of Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge's terror warnings came two days after John Kerry picked John Edwards as his running mate; another came three days after the end of the Democratic convention.

So it went right through the 2004 election. And then not long after the champagne corks stopped popping at Bush campaign headquarters, terror alerts seemed to go out of style. The color codes became yesterday's news. With the exception of one warning about mass-transit facilities in response to the London bombing on July 7, 2005, that was pretty much it until this summer. I live in lower Manhattan and my wife works in a building overlooking Ground Zero. So I want to know when something's really up and not worry that I'm getting bamboozled to amp the President's approval rating.

Can I prove any of this was politically motivated? Of course not. <b>But that's the magic of the terror-alert song and dance. There's no way to know. All the key facts are veiled in secrecy, as they must be.</b> So it's impossible to know from the outside whether it's on the level or not. But with another election looming, it seems we're about to get a bunch of new chances to wonder.

On June 23, cable-news channels went gonzo over a raid on a homegrown terror cell in Miami that foiled an alleged plot to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales held a press conference to announce the arrests. Even Vice President <b>Dick Cheney weighed in and called the group a "very real threat." He did so at a political fundraiser.</b>

But as often is the case in these announcements, it turned out to be a lot less than advertised, unless you were a writer for Saturday Night Live. When the FBI raided the abandoned warehouse where the group hung out in Miami's impoverished Liberty City neighborhood, they found no weapons, no money and no evidence of ties to any terrorist group anywhere. Indeed, these would-be jihadis were so early in their planning for jihad that they hadn't yet set aside time to become Muslims. The group, according to a follow-up report from Reuters, "mixes Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Freemasonry, Gnosticism and Taoism." Their covert methods included taking turns guarding the abandoned warehouse (which served as their clubhouse) wearing black uniforms, ski masks and combat boots in the hot Florida summer. Their leader, Narseal Batiste, roamed the streets in a bathrobe with a crooked wooden staff recruiting men to join his group. The oath of allegiance to al-Qaeda they allegedly made to an FBI informant seems as likely as not to have been prompted by the informants' offer of new pairs of boots for the gang. Shoes were apparently in short supply.

You don't need to be a Muslim or even that bright a bulb to create deadly mayhem. Richard Reid, the would-be shoe bomber, was a klutz, but one who might have downed an airliner en route to the U.S. in the days after 9/11. But the Miami warehouse cult that gave Cheney the willies seemed like they'd have trouble finding a Sears let alone blowing up the Sears Tower.

Two weeks later there was another report of a foiled plot, this one a far more serious-sounding scheme to blow up the Holland Tunnel, which connects New Jersey to Manhattan. Sensing their credibility might be running thin, FBI officials as well as members of media started referring to these plotters as the "real deal" plotters, presumably to distinguish them from whack jobs in Miami. These guys too, it turned out, hadn't done much more than talk in an Internet chat room about blowing something up. And their plan to flood downtown New York City with sea water from a demolished tunnel would have been complicated a bit by the fact that, unlike New Orleans, Manhattan is well above sea level.

The "tell" in this case was the date. The FBI got wind of this plot last summer and arrests were made back in April. So why did we hear about them on July 7, the anniversary of the London bombings? I believe the question answers itself. The story was leaked to pump up the anniversary of the London subway bombings on July 7, 2005, and remind people that if it could happen in London it could happen here. <b>The dozens if not hundreds of law enforcement folks who worked on thwarting this embryonic plot were not part of some political scheme.</b> But whoever chose July 7 to leak the story clearly was. With the mid-term election less than four months away, for some people, that's a helpful message.

Joshua Micah Marshall is head of TPM Media and the founder of Talkingpointsmemo.com

As the recent <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm#USA">polling data</a> concerning public opinion about the progress and management of the war in Iraq and national security clearly indicate, (with the exception of foxnews poll results....) the declining trend in support for Bush and republican management of these issues, less than three months from a mid-term election that could result in the shift of political control of one or both branches of congress to democrats, make what is billed, "a terror alert in the aftermath of the foiling of the greatest Al Qaeda plot since the 9/11 attacks", quite a timely gift for candidates who need to scare potential voters into voting for them.....voting to "stay the course"....because you don't "switch horses" in "mid-stream".....wink....wink !!!

Ustwo · 08-11-2006, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

It's a well known and ongoing issue for world leaders who go on vacation, or do not return to the centres of power, during crises.

It's not a case of "I can do anything from my ranch", but more of a "I take things seriously, and as leader of the nation, my place is in the capital being seen to lead".

History, even recent history, is replete with examples of leaders being criticized (rightly in my opinion) for not being where their public wants and expects them to be during crises.

I suppose that is where I differ from so many, I like substance over style and am not swayed into some sort of false sense of security because someone is at a desk in one location over another. Also this has nothing to do with the criticism the left throws around, they want to paint the image that Bush is off playing golf and drinking beer all day while this is going on. We don't want facts to get in the way now do we.

Quote:

Erm... I don't really understand this comment. Whilst I am a fan of much of American culture, I'm not familiar with all your idioms.

Are you insulting me again?

Mr Mephisto

Never insulted you in the first place, but sometimes the left gets rather touchy when people point out the substance of what they accomplish over the style of what they want to say they are doing. If you read the rest of my post you know I was not off the mark based on the polling data.

pan6467 · 08-11-2006, 07:07 AM

While I do believe that the terror rankings are more often than not used politically by this administration, I do applaud the capture and ultimate downfall of the terrorist plot yesterday, if in fact there truly was one.

I am so jaded anymore, to be honest I don't know what to believe from my government anymore, and that saddens me. When I can no longer trust the government to protect me honestly and without political and partisan one upsmanship, it tells me that neither side truly cares what happens as long as their side comes out looking better. Pathetic way to run the country, don't you think?

And the Right can point fingers at the Left and vice versa..... BUT neither side fucking changes and puts the good of the people ahead of the power of their party. How truly sad.

It's like this thread, instead of offering up a true debate the Right attacks. If they have nothing to truly add then why post?

If this is paranoia then why not allow those posting to say their piece and see what happens?

But the Right have this obsession with having to post the same right winged rah-rah in every thread and not debate or add anything of true substance.

And the Left, instead of being happy noone died in the plot, want to come up with whatever they can to try to get yesterday's arrests nullified because it may help the Right somehow.

HEY ZEUS FREAKING CRISPIES..... I thought ultimately we were on the same team.... to better the lives of the people, to keep America strong and to show that FREEDOM is the best deterrent to any enemy. I guess I am wrong.... I guess this is a country of "Fuck Bush and his power grabs" or "Fucking Left would rather give the country to the terrorists".

How sad..... Instead of saying proudly I am a citizen of the greatest country to ever grace this planet...... I now have to choose a side and be labelled.

Maybe if we keep driving this partisan wedge between ourselves and our country, and we don't get anything done.... the terrorists won't have to bomb or come up with plots..... we'll do it to ourselves just to prove the other side is wrong.

roachboy · 08-11-2006, 09:34 AM

so let's think about this for a second: in the diminished world of the right, the bushpeople do not play politics with situations such as these--but the administration did try to float a line linking this chaos in the uk to al qeada--a link that it simply made up and floated in order to generate a coherence amongst the conservative flock that would keep this plot away from the us-uk sponsorship of the israeli massacre of civilians in lebanon. that way, the action can be reclassified as motivated by the usual idiotic attributes that the bush people like to impute to their imaginary adversary the "terrorist"--they just dont like "us"...blah blah blah...it has nothing to do with the obvious facts of the international situation--nothing to do with the fact that the americans gave israel permission to escalate its action in lebanon and has obstructed attempts to reign it in despite both international political pressure and a growing humanitarian crisis in southern lebanon.

manipulation no. 1: labelling this conspiracy, if there was a coherent one (unlike the chicago "plot" which turned out to be a complete fraud) "terrorism" is already to shift its meanings into the political territory the right has staked out for itself. this territory is predicated on preventing people from thinking rationally about such "threats" as exist---removing explanatory contexts, imputing absurd essentialist motives--it is a politics of hysteria, nothing more and nothing less.

cowboy george's idiotic "islamic fascism" speech yesterday was but further evidence that from the very outset the bush people are trying to reframe this plot and use it as a device for their own political purposes.

there are two underlying dimensions to these claims that i can see:

1. vote republican or die. this is the rove campaign logic and now you all can see it. we will be treated to this specious manipulative horseshit for several months to come.

2. the "enemy" is arbitrary--its motives incomprehensable-so the power that confronts it must also be arbitrary and the actions must be arbitrary as well. this does not function as a description of anything in the world, but it DOES mirror the logic behind the affection that this administration has shown for extralegal actions, its obsession with unrestricted executive power, its beleif that only a de facto far right dictatorship can act to "save amurica" from its imaginary enemies.

for this schmittian de facto dictatorship to unfold behind the figleaf of legality requires a pliant, sycophantic congress willing for partisan reasons to block any and all attempts to counter executive power and questions of legality. this is what is at stake for the bushpeople in november--this is why events in the uk are so important for the right, and also why the right is so concerned to impose its worthless interpretive framework on these events from the outset.

it is interesting to note the differences between the uk interpretation of this conspiracy--such as has been floated so far--and the american, which does not wait for facts and moves directly into linkages outlined above.

it is wholly absurd for the right--even the sorriest representative of the right--to argue that there are no political games being played around this scenario in england. politically, the right is in a very very bad place and its real partisans can only hope and pray for an attack of some kind of happen between now and november. of course, that attack cannot be seen as following directly from the logic of american policy itself--that would be accurate empirically but a fiasco politically--better to simply make arbitrary assertions and jack up the hysterometer.

the right here seems to think that the conspiracy can be taken at what it pretends to be face value and to not accept the right's specious reading of the events is to deny the events---that is idiotic--and patronizing to boot.

Elphaba · 08-11-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

it is interesting to note the differences between the uk interpretation of this conspiracy--such as has been floated so far--and the american, which does not wait for facts and moves directly into linkages outlined above.

Do you mean something like this:

Quote:

But the alleged British plot "is really, really serious," one intelligence official insisted yesterday. "This is the real deal. Honestly. This was not the Moorish Nation," he said, referring to the arrest this summer in Miami of a ragtag, FBI-infiltrated group allegedly plotting to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. "We have reason to believe that this is an al-Qaeda-related operation. I don't mean in terms of a bunch of wannabes finding inspiration" in bin Laden.

pan6467 · 08-11-2006, 10:04 AM

Roach, I may agree with a lot of what you said, but it's like last year when I berated Limbaugh for going on for 3 hours straight (the very DAY of the London bombings) about how it was all the Left's fault..... I feel the same about how the Left are treating this.

It's fucking bullshit..... there are MANY reasons to hate Bush (my personal view), I don't need to take yesterday's arrests and busted terror plots and turn them into some facistic, paranoidal, conspiratorial plot.

The people who are protecting us did a damned good job yesterday and they need to be applauded for a moment before we start the partisan bullshit.

And to the Right, I say, believe and spew all the hate you want also, the fact of the matter is in my mind it shouldn't have mattered who was in power yesterday, to claim this as a conquest for Bush is the same as the Left's charges today...... bullshit.

This was a conquest for safety and those whose job it is to protect us.... noone else's. And in all honesty argue with me all you want, but it won't change the fact that even if we had a Dem. Pres. or a Bush hating PM in the UK.... yesterday still would have happened as it did. Terrorists arrested plot thwarted.

Aladdin Sane · 08-11-2006, 10:10 AM

This thread belongs in Paranoia.

MODsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!

roachboy · 08-11-2006, 10:15 AM

i think you missed my point, pan, but that was probably a function of my tone...i find the claim that this administration is not already using the london plot as political fodder to be disengenuous and i personally have little patience with it.

i do not see any function that could possibly be served by the illusion of unity behind ways of operating that seem to me fundamentally disengenuous. maybe you do--but i don't. i do not see the official american interpretation of this conspiracy as being a matter of popular politics--it is political manoevering by an administration that finds itself in deep shit--that is worried about all kinds of repercussions if the right gets swept out of power in congress in november---think about the administration's attempts to float a bill that would redefine war crimes such that americans cannot commit them. that kind of thing.

have you seen von trier's film dogville?
sometimes i think he is right about the us in that film.

host · 08-11-2006, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

This thread belongs in Paranoia.

MODsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!

If a reporter from a major news network, NBC, on it's website is saying exactly what I'm saying....and MSNBC news anchor, Keith Olbermann, is doing that....
then the theme and context of this thread is "mainstream". Some folks need to adjust to the fact that public opinion has shifted, and put their POV on the "fringe"...

I am providing the following to support the facts that the Bush administration, yesterday, intentionally broadcast a message of fear: 9/11...."nation at war".....as it has for 5 years, to get our attention, distract us, control us.

How would bullshit, fear mongering, propaganda that reminded our grandparents that, "ever since the Pearl Harbor attack....blah....blah....blah...." have been received by the American public;
say.....in November....uhhhh 1946.....four years and eleven months after Pearl Harbor, and fifteen months after the Japanese has surrendered ?

We need results....we hunger for leadership. As the following transcripts show, Mr. Bush's administration knew about this threast for several weeks before yesterday, a liquid bomb attack on an airline almost took place ten years ago, an investigative report concerning the fact that Homeland security was ill prepared to deal with screening for liquid bomb material, was shoen to former 9/11 Commission chairman, Tom Kean, five months ago, and he was reported to be very alarmed at how little progress was being made to detect these liquids.

Why are electronic devices allowed on U.S. planes, but not on British planes?

Why is POTUS Bush on vacation during the highest color coded alert ever issued in the U.S.
Just eleven months ago, as Katrina devastated New Orlean, Bush kept to his vacation schedule;
he visited a hospital in San Diego, he played guitar before the news cameras, he stopped in Arizona to share a birthday cake with John McCain, and finally, he flew over the Katrina impact area, as he ended his vacation....on schedule. Yesterday, he was able to fly to Wisconsin to attend a politcal fundraiser.....make a two minute statement about the absurd descripition of "Islamic Fascists", but the only time he has ever interrupted a sojourn at his Crawford ranch, that I know of, was to fly to Washington in the middle of a saturday night, to sign an unconstitutional law that pre-empted Michael Schiavo's custody of his brain dead wife.

I lived on Manhattan on 9/11. I put aside my furstration over the way Bush came into office after the Florida non-recount. It was uplifting to the spirit and brought hope to all of us who saw Bush speaking from atop the rubble that was, just days before, the WTC towers.

Mr. Bush lost me....I didn't lose him. Where is the progress after his promises? Empty, partisan , rhetoric is all that I see coming from this man....I can't believe anything that he or his appointees tell us. The Invasion of Iraq and the Katrina response are all any of us should need to make up our minds as to whether we trust Mr. Bush to lead us on substance, or on feelings.
There is no substance....there hasn't been any since he stayed in that classroom on 9/11. The only man in the country authorized to order the "shoot down" of an airliner that had become a potential weapon, sat glued to his seat with a "deer in the headlights" look on his face, and then did not leave an elementary school full of children, for a full half hour after the second plane had hit the WTC.

The "fringe" position here folks, is the belief that one can trust and support this U.S. leadership and still be in the "mainstream". The country has moved on from that POV. Welcome to the "fringe"!

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5634298
U.S. Authorities Brief Media on U.K. Plot

NPR.org, August 10, 2006 ·
CHERTOFF: Good morning. We'd like to provide you with the latest information we have on recent events in the United Kingdom and an update on the actions that we are taking to protect our citizens and to keep air travel safe and secure. We want to be as open as possible with the public about the facts.

......First of all, the United States government has raised the nation's threat level to our <b>highest level of alert, severe, or red,</b> for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom and bound for the United States. We've made this adjustment to coordinate our alert level with that that is currently enforced in Britain. In Britain, as you've heard, <b>they are now operating at their highest level, which is called critical..........</b>

.......Accordingly, we are raising the threat level -- or we have raised the threat level with respect to aviation in general <b>to high, or orange.</b> That will cover all inbound international flights other than flights from Great Britain, and it will cover all flights within the United States itself.........

........And now I'd like to turn to Attorney General Gonzales.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES: Thank you, Michael.....

....Now, since 9/11, the threat reporting has consistently shown that there is a vicious and determined enemy that is intent on harming American lives. And every day is September 12th for those of us tasked with protecting America......

.....the entire intelligence community will continue to aggressively pursue every lead and shred of intelligence that arises from this or any other terrorism case. This has been our practice since 9/11, and today is no different from any other day in that sense.......

<b>......As we have stated many times before, we are a nation at war.</b> Today's actions are a stark reminder that the threat is real, and that we have a deadly enemy who still wakes every morning thinking of new ways to kill innocent men, women and children and dreams every night about wrecking the destruction on freedom-loving countries.......

CHERTOFF:.....but the whole point of this exercise is to continue to maintain the level of safety and security in air travel in this country that we have had since September 11th......

....Q: Secretary Chertoff, do you praise British authorities? What do you know about when they learned about this plot? And when did they inform the United States?

CHERTOFF: Let me -- again, I may be a little bit circumspect and say that some of the threads which led to <b>this investigation have been pursued by British authorities for some considerable time. However, it is only recently, certainly within the last two weeks, maybe less, that the investigation revealed that this planning was taking the direction of targeting the United States.</b>

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14303119/
Updated: 11:40 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2006
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 10

......OLBERMANN: Massive delays at American airports till further notice, even though there are no indications of any purported plots against domestic flights.

What about the delay in American politics?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This nation is at war with Islamic fascists.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: <b>The president interrupting his vacation, not to reassure the nation nor go back to the capital, but merely to hit a fundraiser in Wisconsin.</b> His press secretary said Mr. Bush knew of the British investigation as early as Sunday. Did his vice president know? His party national committee chair? Does that explain the unbridled rhetoric about the Democrats and the Connecticut Senate primary vote?......

.....Good evening from New York.

At first glance, it appears that British intelligence has thwarted the biggest terror attack since 9/11, discovering a plan, arresting its plotters, aimed at simultaneously blowing up nine different planes headed to the United States from Britain by using the components of liquid explosives smuggled in carry-on luggage by suicide bombers.

<b>But in our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN, how much of the plot was actually operational, how much of it feasible, how much of the reaction political?</b>

Tonight, a rational, but not cynical, look at an extraordinary day. The kind of mixed information we‘re struggling to balance, intelligence officials say the suspects were planning a test run in the next few days, but also that they had only started to look at plane timetables last week. And while police are testing chemicals at one of the suspects‘ homes in England, it is unclear whether the suspects actually had explosives yet.

But news of the arrests caused mass chaos, one way or the other, in airports on both sides of the Atlantic, all flights from Britain to the United States on red alert, hundreds of them canceled, passengers in England not allowed any hand luggage, only allowed to put necessities, but no liquids, into clear plastic bags to carry on board.

On our shores, commuters also told to ditch all liquids, except medicine and baby formula, even though there is no evidence of any reverse plot to put explosives on U.S. planes heading towards the U.K., nor anything domestic at all....

....For the past several days, the FBI has feverishly looked for any potential ties to people in the U.S., but has so far found none.

ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR, FBI: <b>We literally, in the last couple of weeks, have had hundreds of FBI agents around the country tracking down every lead.</b> And we have not found, to date, any plotters here in the United States...

For more on the mechanics of the alleged plot, I‘m joined by MSNBC‘s terrorism analyst Roger Cressey, former director of the National Security Council staff.

Thanks again for your time, Roger.

ROGER CRESSEY, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Good to see you, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Analyze the mechanics of this. Liquid explosives made from common household items, then mixed, detonated mid-flight. There are lot of questions about this. Would the liquid explosives remain stable until they were supposed to be used? How long? How many people would it take to detonate them? Obviously, these are parts of one big question. Was it technically feasible?

CRESSEY: The answer is yes, precedent setting from the 1990s, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the World Trade Center attack in 1993, conducted attacks on airlines in the Pacific using nitroglycerin with a detonator. That worked. The type of solutions they were going to combine, probably things like TATP, which is an explosive—a peroxide-based explosive that terrorist groups have been using for some time. And you combine it with a blasting cap, which would be relatively easy to put on board. Yes, technologically, it‘s definitely feasible.

OLBERMANN: Easier or more complicated than a shoe bomb? And easier or more complicated than a shoe bomber was to stop?

CRESSEY: More complicated than a shoe bomber, because there are more moving pieces. You have to bring all the pieces on individually and assemble it on the plane, which would have been somewhat challenging, but not impossible.

Easier to stop, in the sense that you‘ve got more moving pieces, so there‘s more opportunities for something to go wrong. So, you know, higher-end risk for the terrorists, but higher-end benefit, given the type of explosions they could have conducted.

OLBERMANN: You mentioned Ramzi Yousef, the guy behind the World Trade Center first bombing in 1993. Congressman DiFazio of Oregon pointed this out that he tried this, as you mentioned again, in the thing that wound up blowing up a Japanese man about 10 years ago. I can‘t bring a soda bottle or a water bottle into a baseball stadium. How come I have not been banned from bringing liquids on planes for the last 10 years?

CRESSEY: Well, I think this question‘s going to get a lot of attention in the coming days, because the security structure we have in place at the airports is not designed to deal with this type of threat.

The scanning equipment is looking for other things. The TSA administrator

I‘m sorry, the TSA officials are trained for other type of things to look at.

So there is a gap in our security regarding these type of potential materials, and we need to have a real close look at how we can fix it.

OLBERMANN: The mechanics of unraveling what kind of plot this was, whatever kind of plot it was, suspects don‘t have an established link to al Qaeda that we know of, but the British knew about this, not for days or weeks, but for months, that they were following these guys. They made a conscious decision, Roll this up right now. Does that suggest to you, from your experience, that there were informants inside the plot?

CRESSEY: I think it‘s either going to be informants inside the plot, some form of electronic surveillance, or maybe surveillance through the Internet. But the fact that they were able to identify them early on in their process and follow them makes me believe there was a human element here.

The good news, Keith, is that these guys were close to the execution phase. Whether or not they would have been successful, we wouldn‘t know, and hopefully, thankfully, we wouldn‘t find out. But they were close enough, and they were serious enough, that it seemed like the right time to disrupt them.

OLBERMANN: There‘s a report just coming in from “TIME” magazine that although the Brits have been looking at this for months, that after MI-5 had tracked these guys all this time, that it was the U.S. that picked up chatter and contact, essentially suggested to Great Britain that it was time to move. Now, does that tell you anything about the process by which this was rolled up?

CRESSEY: Well, I think the real issue here is going to be the role of Pakistan and al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, because as much as this was a home-grown threat, British-born Pakistanis, there was a Pakistan element to it, and that means probably al Qaeda.

So one theory, then, would be, based on the “TIME” magazine report, electronic intercepts, things like that, and a potential go-signal that was given from Pakistan to the plotters to begin their process. If that‘s the case, then we have a stronger al Qaeda connection than we had at the beginning of the day.

OLBERMANN: Lastly, credibility. I don‘t mean to suggest in the slightest that this was made up out of thin air, but we have seen time and time again, we have talked about this, instances of earth-shaking terrorist plots being announced, genuine fear being built in this country and other countries, and it turns out later the plotters were nowhere near as ready nor as sophisticated as originally advertised.

I‘m thinking of the morons in Florida who couldn‘t tell the difference between an al Qaeda agent and an FBI plant. The—their informants, they seem to (INAUDIBLE) looked less like spies and more like enablers, even entrappers.

Your best guess on this. Are you unequivocally sure that this was different than your standard thing that we‘ve heard about for the last nearly five years?

CRESSEY: I haven‘t seen the intelligence reports, so I‘m never unequivocally sure anymore. But based on what we learned today, I think this was the real deal. These weren‘t a bunch of clowns sitting around the mosque trying to decide (INAUDIBLE) undertake jihad on their own. The scope and the magnitude of what they were trying to do has all the hallmarks of an al Qaeda-inspired or maybe an al Qaeda-directed operation.

And lastly, Keith, the British, frankly, are a little more—are better than us when it comes to the credibility question. So I‘ll trust them.

OLBERMANN: Counterterrorism expert Roger Cressey. As always, Roger, great thanks for your time tonight.

CRESSEY: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: We do not know what‘s true and what‘s not, we do not know how serious this purported threat was or is. But this we do know, air travel in this country today was one collective long, long nervous wait in line.

<b>And for four years and 11 months, national security has been the favorite political club of the current administration. So would it be a surprise that even before this latest news broke, we were getting the spin on it from Washington?</b>

You are watching COUNTDOWN on MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: It may be days, weeks, even longer before the full details of the alleged airline terror plot are sketched out for us, including just how imminent and realistic the threat was or is.

The impact on flying, domestic and international, no delay in nailing that.

Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN tonight, no problems in the skies today, but on the ground, chaos. New airport screening rules are now in effect in the U.S., the Transportation Security Administration prohibiting passengers from carrying liquids or gels on board, with limited exceptions. More on that presently from our correspondent, Tom Costello.

<b>But it stands in contrast to rules in Britain. There, everything must now be checked, except for necessities like money and travel documents, which are placed into clear plastic bags. If detonation of a homemade device is the concern, it‘s unclear why electronics have also not been banned on U.S. flights.</b>

To Tom Costello now. He is at Reagan National Airport in Washington.

Tom, good evening.

TOM COSTELLO, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Keith, good evening to you.

And, in fact, this is the notice that, if you are flying today, you very may well have gotten. It says, “Effective immediately, passengers may not have liquids or gels, including beverages, shampoos, suntan lotion, creams, toothpaste, and hair gel.” You can‘t put toothpaste in your carry-on any more.

Well, as you can imagine, this new directive, affecting every airport nationwide, caused massive security backups today, and in some cases, those backups exceeded two hours.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

......Keith, back to you.

OLBERMANN: Tom, as you pointed out, no liquid, no toothpaste. Why, unlike the British, no ban on electronics?

COSTELLO: Yes, you can still bring your iPod, you could still bring your laptop. And theoretically, one of the theories in terms of how they would have detonated a device, involved electronics.

At some point, this becomes a very serious conversation about, where does it end? If you can‘t bring toothpaste, if you can‘t bring your Visine or your contact lenses, if you can‘t listen to an iPod, at some point, there is going to be a very big discussion in this country about how much we are truly giving up.

OLBERMANN: Selfish question. I‘m flying in the morning. I know I‘m not supposed to be alone out there. What are all of us expecting for delays at security? Any estimate, based on what we saw today? Should I leave now and let you finish this newscast?

COSTELLO: I would suggest—yes, that is exactly what I was going to suggest. I would say at least two hours. Based on what I saw this morning, I frankly would give myself three hours. I think it‘s going to take a while to kind of work this whole thing out. At the moment, I would say two to three hours. Hopefully by Monday, it eases up a bit.

OLBERMANN: Tom Costello at Reagan National Airport in Washington for us. Great thanks for staying with us.

COSTELLO: OK.

OLBERMANN: The TSA says it was sent scrambling to enact the new rules banning the liquids overnight, even though a federal investigation proved months ago just how easy it would be to smuggle such explosives past the screeners.

And could it just be coincidence that the president finds about this plot, then his vice president and the Republican chairman start slamming Democrats for being soft on terror, then the public is informed about the plot? Could it really be just coincidence?....

...OLBERMANN: Today, after British officials revealed the latest alleged plot, after they had arrested two dozen suspects, the U.S. government banned passengers from bringing any liquids, not counting medicine and baby formula, aboard domestic flights.

If today‘s events make you wonder whether we might again be accused of being too focused on yesterday‘s threats rather than anticipating tomorrow‘s, you would not be alone.

<b>Five months ago, our senior investigative correspondent, Lisa Myers, wanted to find out how the government was dealing with the then-anticipated threat of explosive components smuggled on board. And, more than a decade ago, Ramzi Yousef concocted a plot of mixing his own liquid explosives in mid-flight and blowing up or crippling a series of airliners over an ocean.</b>

None of this is new, as a second look at Lisa‘s report from March of this year suggests.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LISA MYERS, MSNBC CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):

Imagine this, inside a passenger plane. Government sources tell NBC NEWS that federal investigators recently were able to carry materials needed to make a similar homemade bomb through security screening at 21 airports. <b>In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one stopped these materials.</b>

We briefed Governor Tom Kean, chair of the 9/11 commission, on the results.

<b>TOM KEAN, CHAIR, 9/11 COMMISSION: I‘m appalled and dismayed, and, yes, to a degree, it does surprise me, because I thought the Department of Homeland Security was making some progress on this, and evidently they‘re not.</b>

MYERS: Investigators for the Government Accountability Office conducted the tests between October and January at the request of Congress. The goal, determine how vulnerable U.S. airlines are to a suicide bomber using cheap, readily available materials.

Investigators found recipes for homemade bombs from easily available public sources and bought chemicals and other materials over the counter.

(On camera): For security reasons, NBC will not reveal any of the ingredients or the airports tested. The report itself is classified. But Lee Hamilton, the vice chair of the 9/11 commission, says the fact that so many airports failed this test is a hugely important story, which the American traveler is entitled to know.

(Voice-over): NBC NEWS asked a bomb technician to gather the same materials and assemble an explosive device to determine its power. The materials for this bomb fit in the palm of one hand. We showed the results to Leo West, a former FBI bomb expert.

LEO WEST, FORMER FBI BOMB EXPERT: Well, potentially, an explosion of that type could lead to the destruction of the aircraft.

MYERS: The Transportation Security Administration would not comment on the tests but tells NBC NEWS that “detecting explosive materials and IEDs is TSA‘s top priority.”

The agency also says screeners are now receiving added training to help identify these materials. Not soon enough for Tom Kean.

KEAN: They need to do it yesterday, because we haven‘t got time.

MYERS: Given hardened cockpit doors and other improvements, experts say explosives now are the gravest threat posed by terrorists in the sky.

Lisa Myers, NBC NEWS, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

OLBERMANN: That was in March on this broadcast, no outcry from the administration then. <b>Heavy politicizing now, now that there is an apparently obvious threat from liquid explosives.</b> We‘ll truth-squad the politics of the terror threat..

....OLBERMANN: If you have any trouble following your government‘s position on terror and your safety, let‘s clear it all up right now. In our third story on the COUNTDOWN.

<h3>A year ago on July 4 the president made it very clear that we are safe here at home thanks to his war in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We‘re taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: However, if you think that means that we don‘t have to face them here at home, as the president said today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America.</h3>

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Now, where would anybody have gotten such an idea? And as the time line of the revelation of the purported liquid explosives airline plot becomes clearer, the political facts are underscored. You can say, without fear of contradiction that there is a political component to all this. The president had the details from London no later than Sunday, so when Republican Committee Chair Ken Mehlman and Vice President Dick Cheney eviscerated Connecticut Democrats for choosing Ned Lamont over Senator Joe Lieberman and brought al Qaeda into the equation they, at minimum, knew a terror act would be breaking shortly. Did the press secretary know it when he threw the president‘s own father under the wheels of the bus of history, last night?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

<h3>TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The real question for the American people to ask themselves is: Do you take the war on terror seriously? With all the developments going on around the world, and if so, how do you fight it to win? There seem to be two approaches, and in the Connecticut race one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away.</h3> Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of the—of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn‘t stay the course and that led to September 11.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Not surprisingly, today Mr. Snow was asked off camera, “Did you all know that this was going to break today, yesterday, when there was this massive response to the Connecticut primary, discussion of terrorism, al Qaeda?” A yes or no question. Mr. Snow‘s answer was neither, “I don‘t want to get into operational details. This was not—however, it was not explicit—let me put it this way, I don‘t want to encourage that line of thought. I don‘t think it‘s fully accurate, but I also don‘t want—I know it‘s frustrating, but we really don‘t want to get too much into who knew what, where, when.”

<h3>About a minute later, responding to a nonpolitical question, Mr. Snow let slip that Mr. Bush approved the red-alert status yesterday.</h3> ("host"adds....that would be on Aug. 9...)

Joining us now to help us measure the political element here that we mentioned, Jonathan Alter, NBC political analyst, also of “Newsweek,” also the author of “The Defining Moment: FDR‘s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope.”

Jonathan, good evening.

JONATHAN ALTER, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: <b>Let us start with the strange statement from the president of making the mistake of thinking there‘s no threat against us. Who is he saying made that mistake? And at what point did they make it?</b>

ALTER: Well, it‘s innuendo, you know, he‘s trying to implying that people who disagree with this policy on Iraq are somehow soft on terrorism. That‘s their game. That‘s the only card, politically, that they have to play. They play it extremely well. It did extremely well for them in both the 2002 and 2004 elections and they‘re going to play it again hard this year.....

......OLBERMANN: But, Roger Cressey put this neatly earlier and he‘s far less prone to calling a foul on this than am I. This administration has set the bar so low when it comes to trumpeting its terror arrests, he said, so we have a bit of a credibility gap here. This is the greatest threat since 9/11, the discovery of the recon photos of the financial buildings in New York and D.C. that was the greatest threat since 9/11, the rock-hard evidence of flights from Europe that were to be crashed into Vegas at Christmas time 2003, that was the greatest threat since 9/11. Is there a point at which most people start doubting the idea that no government would ever dream of scaring its own people unnecessarily?

ALTER: Well, you know, you mentioned my FDR book. I mean, I sometimes think the motto that these folks have is the only thing we have to “use” is fear itself. It works well for them. And yes, they do exploit it. You didn‘t even mention all the cases—you had John Ashcroft in Moscow at one point, I believe in 2002, you know, trumping something up from thousands of miles away.

OLBERMANN: The arrest of Padilla, yes.

ALTER: Yeah, so you‘ve got a whole series of events, but you know, in the same way that even paranoids have real enemies, even people who are exploiting things politically are still confronting a serious terrorism threat, and if Democrats don‘t want to be thrown into the briar patch on this issue again, they will be very careful to make sure that they don‘t, in the interest of scoring political points, forget that there are people out there who want to kill us and we‘ve got to keep that in mind.

OLBERMANN: So, let‘s also point one last finger here towards the media, ourselves, buying into the whole thing whole-hog, terror in the skies on the graphics on TV, but the Web sites and the newspapers have not been far behind. What about the role of the media in authenticating that for which we have only the word of two governments and no other evidence of our own?

ALTER: Well, I think at a certain level, the media always has to give the government, in this kind of case, the benefit of the doubt at first, then go back and ask a lot of hard questions, which you‘ve started quite appropriately to do here tonight, but to assume from the get go that the government is lying about security matters I think would be an excessively cynical posture, so that the key thing for the media is to perform that accountability function, so for instance, I don‘t know how many people, you know, know this, but air cargo—in other words, the cargo that‘s beneath everybody when they‘re on a plane is not checked in the united—less than 10 percent of it is checked, so we have these other huge security gaps, and it‘s the media‘s jobs to ask all the tough questions on all these issues.

OLBERMANN: Skeptical, not cynical.

ALTER: Exactly.

OLBERMANN: We‘ll try. Jonathan Alter of “Newsweek” and NBC NEWS, great thanks for your time, sir.

ALTER: Thanks, Keith.

Ustwo · 08-11-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

This thread belongs in Paranoia.

MODsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!

They gave up a long time ago

I let it annoy me for a while, but with TFP declining in population, its the same people who are going to post anyways.

roachboy · 08-11-2006, 12:05 PM

i am done with this thread.
the arguments from the right are of such nitwit quality that there is no motivation to waste my time on them.
way to go folks.

View Poll Results: Do You Believe That the US/UK Terror Alert is Genuine or About Political Control?
Genuine	15	62.50%
I'm Inclined to Believe that the Alert is a Politcally Motivated "Scare Tactic".	9	37.50%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

08-10-2006, 08:59 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lets just say, I was waiting for this post. Thanks host. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-10-2006, 09:51 AM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so let's see: any suspicion cast on the self-evidently political usages of public hysteria over "terrorism" amounts to a conspiracy theory? nice, folks: that means that either you take each and every "terror alert" entirely seriously or you are indulging in conspiracy. great way to foster a debate on the question of the political usage of hysteria. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-10-2006, 10:04 AM	#5 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So because this happened before federal elections it is a "very convenient to attempt to reverse the polling numbers results that show deterioration in the confidence of the electorate" Do you remember madrid march 11? That was right before their elections. It worked out in the terrorists favor. They blew up trains, killed hundreds of people, the Spanish voted out their current admin, replaced with an anti-US socialist government, pulled their military out of Iraq and the WoT. Maybe al-qaeda thinks they could achieve more success with better timing of terrorist acts. Like prior to elections...and close to the 5th anniversary of 9/11. ...just wait for 8/22....well maybe I'll take that to paranoia. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser Last edited by stevo; 08-10-2006 at 10:43 AM.. Reason: got my terror dates mixed up...oops

08-10-2006, 10:30 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	screw it, this is not worth my time. if ustwo and stevo want to divert yet another debate away from anything like content and onto barely concealed ad hominems directed at host then have at it. no matter, i guess, that you diminish the forum in the process. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-10-2006 at 10:40 AM..

08-10-2006, 09:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I think you missed the part where the planes never actually blew up. Wouldn't that have been the logical time to advance a conspiracy theory?

08-10-2006, 10:21 AM	#8 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think that the terror alert system has been used as a political tool much more than it has ever been used as an actual terror alert system. This current instance seems like one of the few times where the terror alert system actually had something to do with actual terrorism.

08-10-2006, 10:45 AM	#13 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Host, when the dozen people who would obviously be completely innocent (according to your conspiracy theory) get their time in court it'll be your proving ground. Unless you believe that Blair and Bush would falsely imprison a dozen people for political purposes... and have enough power to actually do so, this will convince you. Then again you believe that Bush killed everyone on 9/11... so not much of a stretch. Until then your evidence doesn't qualify as legitimate.

08-10-2006, 04:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	A legitimate question/poll is posted with an opinion given (with relevant background material), and once again Ustwo attempts to derail any potential dialogue with a subtle mocking of Host. To what purpose other than a personal vendetta or simply taking pleasure in the role of troll, do you bother to post here? Ustwo, your absence from the Politics forum may have gone without notice, but your return with the same old BS screams your presence. Has it occurred to you that issues of a political nature do not revolve around you and your world view? Host, in response to your OP: I have yet to vote on this one because I am going to wait for a few days to see what other information may surface. The highly questionnable announcements in the media this year of disrupted terrorist activities in the US, causes me to remain skeptical. The obvious psyops behind the recent arrests in the US have done a great disservice to any legitimate claim to the disruption of terrorist cells. Did you notice the report the prior day that the US turned back a British flight because two passengers on the "do not fly" list were discovered? If the Brit's were already on top of this group, and the arrests made because the acquisition of flight tickets was in progress...doesn't that seem a bit pat? We shall see. Last edited by Elphaba; 08-10-2006 at 04:40 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

08-10-2006, 04:55 PM	#18 (permalink)
keyshawn Psycho	I don't know if I'll jump in this fest, eh, what the hell, I guess. I'll tackle the vacation first: One viewpoint could be that: The fact that they were on vacation that was some possible miscommunication occured between the intelligence officials and the executive offices of when this takedown was going to occur and caught Tony, George, and the crews off guard. Or another (one, that as of now, I find the most plausible) that the SY was keeping Blair and his right-hand men abreast of the situation everyday or so; and SY let him know that the takedown was imminent (but they don't have to get his explicit approval to go in and make the arrests, do they ?!) and he figured that they [intelligence departments for each state] 'll take care of it and if he needs to come back to the home office early and make a press conference or two, and some meetings, he will. (Same goes for George). I assume that both offices have contigency plans ready (although I definitely acknowledge that they are NOT foolproof) in case something like this happens; and have a general guidelines of things to do. As for the Terror Alerts, I think its purpose is to give the public the notion that the government is doing something about it. (The intelligence agencies realize that the public wouldnt be happy in either case: one case being the overt security measures that are now in place, and the other being that if they did not take another action and in the possible, but not probable, some other terrorist event happened, the entire public would demand for the resignations of Blairs, bush, and the intelligence departments for not stopping things. (I understand why the terror alerts exist, although I personally do not agree that they are the best and most appropriate actions to take.) As for this attack's effects on the political landscape, I think both of the American political parties use whatever news that they can get ahold of to support their points. [To be honest, I feel resigned from participating in this thread since not much substantial dialogue has occured yet, but I'll contribute my brief thoughts. As for the poll question, Host, I'm having trouble understanding what 'genuine' means in this context, if you could explain a bit more, I'll understand the question and make a response regards, keyshawn __________________ currently reading: currently playing : Last edited by keyshawn; 08-10-2006 at 05:00 PM..

08-10-2006, 05:02 PM	#19 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I picked the second option just because they've done numerous fake terror alerts before so I immedietely have to question this one. That doesn't mean they won't use a patsy to really blow something up though.

08-10-2006, 05:25 PM	#20 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Guys welcome to the information age. Being on vacation these days means nothing when you deal with information and orders. What should they be doing, sitting in their offices, staring at a red phone? Its August, the people in charge of dealing with the terrorists were doing their job, you take some time 'off' which again these days means you just get out of the spotlight for a few days. I doubt there ever is a real day off for either Bush or Blair. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-10-2006, 07:47 PM	#22 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	Could it be that a different set of security protocols exist while on "vacation" that enable more flexibility? While it seems a bit daft to repeatedly go on vacation when things hit the fan, it could help explain the repeat nature of this gaffe. It also relieves some amount of explanation. Instead of "We high-tailed it to the bunker," the message becomes "We were in our triply reinforced subterrainian ski-lodge celebrating Dick's anniversary." As for the alert level I believe it would be very hard to resist using them as political tools. Could be real, could be manipulation. This time? How do we know? If I were OBL it'd be a good time of year to cause a commotion. If I were Bush, same deal. I'm just glad my job doesn't require lots of air travel. That has become a royal PITA. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

08-10-2006, 08:14 PM	#25 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Well the information will come out in the ensuing trials. If they are all found innocent your questioning will be founded. If not will you assume it's another conspiracy?

08-10-2006, 10:59 PM	#28 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	I think the terror alert was raised because the people who can raise it truly believe there is a threat. HOWEVER, I think this ‘threat’ may be little more than some a video clip of some battlefield 2 game play with some audio from team America world police on top. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

08-11-2006, 07:07 AM	#32 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	While I do believe that the terror rankings are more often than not used politically by this administration, I do applaud the capture and ultimate downfall of the terrorist plot yesterday, if in fact there truly was one. I am so jaded anymore, to be honest I don't know what to believe from my government anymore, and that saddens me. When I can no longer trust the government to protect me honestly and without political and partisan one upsmanship, it tells me that neither side truly cares what happens as long as their side comes out looking better. Pathetic way to run the country, don't you think? And the Right can point fingers at the Left and vice versa..... BUT neither side fucking changes and puts the good of the people ahead of the power of their party. How truly sad. It's like this thread, instead of offering up a true debate the Right attacks. If they have nothing to truly add then why post? If this is paranoia then why not allow those posting to say their piece and see what happens? But the Right have this obsession with having to post the same right winged rah-rah in every thread and not debate or add anything of true substance. And the Left, instead of being happy noone died in the plot, want to come up with whatever they can to try to get yesterday's arrests nullified because it may help the Right somehow. HEY ZEUS FREAKING CRISPIES..... I thought ultimately we were on the same team.... to better the lives of the people, to keep America strong and to show that FREEDOM is the best deterrent to any enemy. I guess I am wrong.... I guess this is a country of "Fuck Bush and his power grabs" or "Fucking Left would rather give the country to the terrorists". How sad..... Instead of saying proudly I am a citizen of the greatest country to ever grace this planet...... I now have to choose a side and be labelled. Maybe if we keep driving this partisan wedge between ourselves and our country, and we don't get anything done.... the terrorists won't have to bomb or come up with plots..... we'll do it to ourselves just to prove the other side is wrong. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-11-2006, 09:34 AM	#33 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so let's think about this for a second: in the diminished world of the right, the bushpeople do not play politics with situations such as these--but the administration did try to float a line linking this chaos in the uk to al qeada--a link that it simply made up and floated in order to generate a coherence amongst the conservative flock that would keep this plot away from the us-uk sponsorship of the israeli massacre of civilians in lebanon. that way, the action can be reclassified as motivated by the usual idiotic attributes that the bush people like to impute to their imaginary adversary the "terrorist"--they just dont like "us"...blah blah blah...it has nothing to do with the obvious facts of the international situation--nothing to do with the fact that the americans gave israel permission to escalate its action in lebanon and has obstructed attempts to reign it in despite both international political pressure and a growing humanitarian crisis in southern lebanon. manipulation no. 1: labelling this conspiracy, if there was a coherent one (unlike the chicago "plot" which turned out to be a complete fraud) "terrorism" is already to shift its meanings into the political territory the right has staked out for itself. this territory is predicated on preventing people from thinking rationally about such "threats" as exist---removing explanatory contexts, imputing absurd essentialist motives--it is a politics of hysteria, nothing more and nothing less. cowboy george's idiotic "islamic fascism" speech yesterday was but further evidence that from the very outset the bush people are trying to reframe this plot and use it as a device for their own political purposes. there are two underlying dimensions to these claims that i can see: 1. vote republican or die. this is the rove campaign logic and now you all can see it. we will be treated to this specious manipulative horseshit for several months to come. 2. the "enemy" is arbitrary--its motives incomprehensable-so the power that confronts it must also be arbitrary and the actions must be arbitrary as well. this does not function as a description of anything in the world, but it DOES mirror the logic behind the affection that this administration has shown for extralegal actions, its obsession with unrestricted executive power, its beleif that only a de facto far right dictatorship can act to "save amurica" from its imaginary enemies. for this schmittian de facto dictatorship to unfold behind the figleaf of legality requires a pliant, sycophantic congress willing for partisan reasons to block any and all attempts to counter executive power and questions of legality. this is what is at stake for the bushpeople in november--this is why events in the uk are so important for the right, and also why the right is so concerned to impose its worthless interpretive framework on these events from the outset. it is interesting to note the differences between the uk interpretation of this conspiracy--such as has been floated so far--and the american, which does not wait for facts and moves directly into linkages outlined above. it is wholly absurd for the right--even the sorriest representative of the right--to argue that there are no political games being played around this scenario in england. politically, the right is in a very very bad place and its real partisans can only hope and pray for an attack of some kind of happen between now and november. of course, that attack cannot be seen as following directly from the logic of american policy itself--that would be accurate empirically but a fiasco politically--better to simply make arbitrary assertions and jack up the hysterometer. the right here seems to think that the conspiracy can be taken at what it pretends to be face value and to not accept the right's specious reading of the events is to deny the events---that is idiotic--and patronizing to boot. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-11-2006, 10:04 AM	#35 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Roach, I may agree with a lot of what you said, but it's like last year when I berated Limbaugh for going on for 3 hours straight (the very DAY of the London bombings) about how it was all the Left's fault..... I feel the same about how the Left are treating this. It's fucking bullshit..... there are MANY reasons to hate Bush (my personal view), I don't need to take yesterday's arrests and busted terror plots and turn them into some facistic, paranoidal, conspiratorial plot. The people who are protecting us did a damned good job yesterday and they need to be applauded for a moment before we start the partisan bullshit. And to the Right, I say, believe and spew all the hate you want also, the fact of the matter is in my mind it shouldn't have mattered who was in power yesterday, to claim this as a conquest for Bush is the same as the Left's charges today...... bullshit. This was a conquest for safety and those whose job it is to protect us.... noone else's. And in all honesty argue with me all you want, but it won't change the fact that even if we had a Dem. Pres. or a Bush hating PM in the UK.... yesterday still would have happened as it did. Terrorists arrested plot thwarted. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-11-2006, 10:10 AM	#36 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	This thread belongs in Paranoia. MODsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!! __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

08-11-2006, 10:15 AM	#37 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think you missed my point, pan, but that was probably a function of my tone...i find the claim that this administration is not already using the london plot as political fodder to be disengenuous and i personally have little patience with it. i do not see any function that could possibly be served by the illusion of unity behind ways of operating that seem to me fundamentally disengenuous. maybe you do--but i don't. i do not see the official american interpretation of this conspiracy as being a matter of popular politics--it is political manoevering by an administration that finds itself in deep shit--that is worried about all kinds of repercussions if the right gets swept out of power in congress in november---think about the administration's attempts to float a bill that would redefine war crimes such that americans cannot commit them. that kind of thing. have you seen von trier's film dogville? sometimes i think he is right about the us in that film. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-11-2006, 12:05 PM	#40 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am done with this thread. the arguments from the right are of such nitwit quality that there is no motivation to waste my time on them. way to go folks. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite