UK counter-terrorism op foils aircraft explosion plot

[Gouda]

Is that Amanpour reporting from London or framed in a window in Amsterdam's red light discrict? Ah yes, the oldest profession in the world: telereporter. <br><br>(No disrespect meant towards red light workers, though I can see how juxtapositioning Amanpour amongst them would put them in an even more degrading light.) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 8/12/06 3:26 am<br></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>They are Neo-Fascists.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Good memetics, I approve. Let's roll.. <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

It is beyond me how the Bush administration can claim this crisis as a success, when it demonstrates how badly the administration has misdirected resources away from the REAL oponents to the war in Iraq :<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/12/dems_better_explot_uk_terrorist_plot_or_theyll_lose">www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coff...heyll_lose</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Dems Better Exploit UK Terrorist Plot -- Or They'll Lose<br><br>By M.J. Rosenberg <br><br>Editorial from today's NY <br><br>Times: "The most frightening thing about the foiled plot to use liquid explosives to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic is that both the government and the aviation industry have been aware of the liquid bomb threat for years but have done little to prepare for it. What saved everyone was apparently superb intelligence work by the British, who apprehended the terrorists before they could carry out their scheme. It is unlikely that any of the scanning machines or screening personnel deployed at airports would have detected the potentially destructive materials before they could be carried aboard."<br><br><br><br>In other words, the Bush administration is not even meeting the bare requirements of fighting a war on terrorism: arming us to fight technologies they know are out there and which terrorists will use to kill us. It's just like it's ignoring the container ship issue. I wonder how many other of these technologies are out there which DHS knows about and does nothing to thwart.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>This is a natural issue for the Dems to use in the fall. But I see no evidence they will.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> As other posters have written, the Dems have allowed the GOP to own the terrorism issue. Most of them (not all) shrink from criticizing the administration on this because they are scared. In their hearts, they think the Repubs are more credible on terrorism so they keep quiet.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>That is why Bush never had to answer for being asleep at the switch on 9/11. And it's why the GOP, and not the Dems, are likely to benefit in November from exposure of the UK plot.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>To put it simply. If Dems allow the GOP to use the terrorist issue against them, they do not deserve to control Congress or the White House.<br><br>My guess, the Dems run and hide and the party responsible for US unpreparedness in the face of terrorism successfully uses the issue against Democrats. <br><br>If that happens, we will know that it is third party time.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/13/06 10:45 pm<br></i>

[pugzleyca3]

"And there is some evidence that is coming out now, five years after 9/11, that many, many Muslims in England and around the world, according to documentaries that have been produced, are really succumbing to the conspiracy theories. They're really now saying that 9/11 was not al Qaeda; it was a U.S./CIA, Mossad/Israel, Zionist plot, basically designed to cause a war against Islam."<br><br><br>These statements are so screwed up, they hardly make any sense.<br><br>The first sentence basically says that documentaries have been made about Muslims in England and around the world who are succumbing to conspiracy theories. <br><br>At least she told some truth in the second sentence, even though I know she didn't mean to.<br><br>Well, I guess that's what happens when you become eager to get your message out. Or maybe the entire paragraph is an example of keyword highjacking. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 8/14/06 12:54 am<br></i>

[Byrne]

The same statement/slur was made in the <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_05_06_narrative.pdf" target="top">Official Narrative</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> into the July 7th 2005 London Bomb ‘events’.<br><br>In section 41 of the document, the following statement appears:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Conspiracy theories also abounded, at least some of the bombers seem to have expressed the view that the 9/11 attacks were a plot by the US.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br>It’s a version of ‘You’re either with us or with the terrorists’, <br><br>i.e. if you believe that 911 was an inside job; then you condone what 'these terrorists' are doing. They are trying to reinforce the lie that anyone who questions any official gubermint statement is possibly/probably a terrorist sympathiser.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[HMKGrey]

Does anybody have an official number for the amount of checked luggage that is scanned in the US? <br><br>I've read everything from 10% to 100%. <br><br>It seems to me that this number would be a really helpful number to have right now. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>