These guys, on the contrary, "had not attended terror-training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan and had relied on information gleaned from text books on how to make bombs."

Sounds like Natasha and Boris in an episode of Bullwinkle.

In the words of Josh Marshall, have we been bamboozled?

D'ja think the WH could possibly be hyping the threat of terrorism for political purposes? Nah, impossible! Remember, the grown-ups are in charge. Honor and integrity have been restored to Washington!

NEWSFLASH! The Unabomber never attended terror-training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan and had to rely on information gleaned from text books on how to make bombs too!

Hmm, good analogy! This motley grab bag of suspects is just like a lone, whacked out Harvard Ph.D. math genius Luddite who lived in a cabin in the woods and who actually was a terrorist.

I'm guessing "not real" since they haven't released any good damning information yet. If they had it, they'd surely have released some (at least non-identifying) bits - to justify their expensive and invasive airport searches, if for no other reason.

Like with pre-war Iraqi WMD claims, they kept gesturing in the direction of it, but there was never any "there" there. When the whole world was waiting for the case to be made, they kept stalling. That means there's nothing there, I'd put it 95 to 1.

The Unabomber, for all his evil, didn't disable our transportaton system or cause the civlized world to tie itself up in knots. We are doing this, partly out of legitimate fear, but also because ANY threat tends to justify the power lust of certain politicians. At some point, we may want to assess these threats soberly instead of hysterically. Yes, fear can be fun. But it's ultimately counterproductive for the maintenance of global civilization.

Good evening. Working hard, in this busy time for you called. This is my friend and the Boke,just established, the time is not long. The issue here isthat everybody can see my Boke, Ha-ha, raising some visibility, which caused trouble to ask your forgiveness! We all hope to see. Please! 如烟往事博客 记忆深处博客 漠北孤烟博客 天涯无悔博客 月光城市博客 寂寞如烟博客 三国演义博客 江南记忆博客 青海日光博客 月复西斜博客 马帮茶道 雨天下雨博客 秋日私语博客 苍凉世界博客 把酒问天博客 逍遥过客 铿锵玫瑰 寂寞雨夜 乡下孩子博客 天上人间博客 我心飞翔 尘封往事博客 岁月如歌博客 庐山之恋 三间茅屋博客 wanqiudaocao guyan

In related news, when will Mr. Drum finally drop his "gotta take terrorism seriously" mantra? (seems he goes back and forth between arguing it's just good and necessary electoral strategy, and the honest "truth")

And don't forget the nutjob 'Muslim' cult from Florida, whose name nobody could even agree on. Haven't hear much about them lately.

Was it about winning elections? Building public support for draconian security legislation? Plain old bureaucratic incompetence?

The latter.
The former.
The inbetween.

Except here... in what we call modern day Bush-reality... instead of calling "WOLF! WOLF! WOLF!" these administrative hacks were following orders and shouting "MOOSE! MOOSE! MOOSE!"

Unbelivable.

Wow...

In fact... Boris and Natasha were so good... hell... they didn't even need passports either.

ROFLMAO...

BOO!!!!!

The repug bogey man strikes again!

I'm still embarrassed that I used to regularly purchase my country's two national newspapers. They both had screaming headlines with front-page trans-atlantic maps and nifty diagrams with little jetplanes and dotted lines; many more pages inside about TERROR and CHAOS. And here's dumb ol' unworldly me thinking, 'shouldn't this only be a big story if something actually happened?'

And Thomas1, you 'still think[ing] they were intent on blowing up planes' is the point many of us are making here. Dupes and willing believers fall for this crap. That's how the neo-cons roll.

Wouldn't it be the pits if OBL was willing to sacrefice several cells of incompetent ne'er-do-wells just to gin up the "boy (George) crying wolf" factor while he sets up "the big one".

I vote for "winning elections."

Wouldn't it be the pits if OBL was willing to sacrefice several cells of incompetent ne'er-do-wells just to gin up the "boy (George) crying wolf" factor while he sets up "the big one".
Posted by: Keith G on August 17, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

The double digit IQ in the White House is more than eager to take the bait.

Craig Murphy, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, (and was cashiered, he says, because he fought against U.S.- and U.K.-aided humaan rights abuses there) says the plot is an utter fabrication, by two pols in dire straits:

Check out his site:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

Craig

...incompetent ne'er-do-wells just to gin up the "boy (George) crying wolf"...

According to the BBC nobody has yet been charged. How do you gin up a plot that looks big and scary, yet nobody gets charged?

Building public support for draconian security legislation?

John Reid gave a speech talking about the need to push through another wad of security legislation, and damn the judges and civil liberties types. Next day, the raids happen. Reid's been the most high-profile minister while Blair's in Barbados, and polling suggests that he'll get greater public support for his anti-terrah legislation now. Various MPs are muttering about Reid as a challenger to Gordon Brown, though if the throttling of Britain's airports at the height of the tourist season turns out to be against a bunch of amateurs, those prospects may well be down the privy.

Not all politics happens on this side of the pond. But the echoes travel quite fast.

I'm guessing "not real" since they haven't released any good damning information yet. If they had it, they'd surely have released some (at least non-identifying) bits - to justify their expensive and invasive airport searches, if for no other reason.

I disagree. Sub judice is taken seriously in the UK, and any substantive leaks from there before charging might damage the chance of a prosecution. Although the fact that Blair hasn't bothered to pack up his suntan lotion speaks for itself.

Thomas:

Because she doesn't believe you actually exist :)

Bob

Was it about winning elections? Building public support for draconian security legislation? Plain old bureaucratic incompetence?

You know, there's such a fine line....

Craig Murphy, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, (and was cashiered, he says, because he fought against U.S.- and U.K.-aided humaan rights abuses there) says the plot is an utter fabrication, by two pols in dire straits:

Check out his site:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

Craig

Thomas1: P.S. koreyel -- last time I checked, you don't need a passport to blow up a plane.

The story we've been given is that these guys were planning to get bomb making ingredients past security by disguising the separate ingredients of a binary explosive in containers commonly permitted in carry on bags -- various liquids, etc. Then the (inert) ingredients in two different containers were to be combined by someone on the airplane, hence forming the explosive mixture. To do this, one needs to be on the plane. To get on the plane, bound for a foreign country such as the US, I believe one either needs to have a passport, or be an employee of the airline or the airport. Or be Jack Baur.

The red pill or the blue pill?

*sigh* After a certain point saying "I told you so" really does lose its zest. I've been saying "I told you so" so much over the past five years that I'm thinking of just getting those words printed on a card that I can simply hold up.

The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.

By the way, yes it's late but perhaps most can restrain themselves from indulging Charlie/Thomas and his multiple alter egos in his lunatic scenarios? Just because he writes nonsense doesn't mean you have to respond to it....

The more this happens, the righter I am about 9/11 - it was a lucky strike in every sense.

But by all means, let's spend all our time running around in circles, panicking about crazy brown people.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports,

OK, so they weren't organized, had no idea what they were doing, didn't have the necessary equipment or training, didn't have the money, didn't have a plan....hmmmm. Are we sure that, instead of a bombing, they weren't simply planning an invasion of Iraq instead?

Just because he writes nonsense doesn't mean you have to respond to it....

Indeed, if you stand back, he'll just respond to himself. Which is best for everyone, really.

Are we sure that, instead of a bombing, they weren't simply planning an invasion of Iraq instead?

We have a winner!

But by all means, let's spend all our time running around in circles, panicking about crazy brown people.

Reminds me of a background bit in The Simpsons. Mr. Burns calls a fire drill at the nuclear plant, and after the alarm goes off there's one little guy in the background, out of his mind with fear, actually running around in a circle and saying over and over again "fire! fire! fire! fire! fire! fire! fire!....." If that was a real person instead of a cartoon he'd be fully qualified as a Fox "News" terrorism analyst.....

Stefan, Craigie,

Duly noted.

What news about this plot are we going to discover buried on page A13 a couple of weeks from now?

That it was really Colonel Mustard in the Conservatory with the Rope.

If that was a real person instead of a cartoon he'd be fully qualified as a Fox "News" terrorism analyst.....

I'm sorry, but what's the distinction here?

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports

Passports? We ain't got no passports. We don't need no passports. I don't have to show you any stinking passports!

The cartoons have more depth.

And humanity.

I would prefer to get my news from a cartoon character. It would be a lot more trustworthy, and have better hair.

Kevin: 'Sure, and if I had an IQ of 200 and a PhD in oncology maybe I could find a cure for cancer.'

Very, very funny, Kevin

I will wager you $100 for 95 to 1 odds there was an actionable intent to blow up planes -- passports or not -- care to put your money where your mouth is?

Shutup, gringo. Online betting is against the law you criminal, you. Maybe I should call the Federalies.

Kevin Drum,

You've got Black Helicopters on Line 1.

Buy tin and aluminum foil long.

Speaking of plots that never were, in the Spring I was in London, and during that time there was a police raid on a house, where they actually shot a guy (who lived) and also arrested his brother. That was supposed to be the culmination of a major terrorist investigation too - and it unraveled in days. I don't think either of them was ever charged...

NEWSFLASH! The Unabomber never attended terror-training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan and had to rely on information gleaned from text books on how to make bombs too!

NEWSFLASH! George W Bush never attended terror-training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and had to rely on very expensive taxpayer-funded defense contractors to make bombs too!

P.S. koreyel -- last time I checked, you don't need a passport to blow up a plane.
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 17, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

I get onto international flights without a passport all the time.
(Republic of Texas *is* another nation. Isn't it?)

On the other hand, every time I've returned to the US via Heathrow, I've had to show my passport at check in.

I will wager you $100 for 95 to 1 odds there was an actionable intent to blow up planes -- passports or not -- care to put your money where your mouth is?
Posted by: Thomas1 on August 17, 2006 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

What the hell is the point of that? The only way you could ever collect is if we all went back in time, convinced the police not to arrest the "terrorists", and instead watch and wait and see what they do - if and only if they ever took their plan successfully to its conclusion.

I'm not saying it's impossible, of course. I'm just saying, with planes still in the air, and no material evidence, you can't conclusively prove that these guys were a threat.

Though if the debate is whether people can be charged for "conspiracy" - I won't argue against that.

Buy tin and aluminum foil long.
Posted by: Birkel on August 17, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

Shows how much you know. Aluminum foil is useless. Insist on real Tin.

And the statistical corellation between terror alerts and elections has already been well established. What has not been well established is even one single serious plot since 9/11, prior to successful execution. Excluding the botched London Subway round 2.

The Met had to make a public apology to them,craigie...very embarrassing.

Don't forget the cell-phone-bombers arrested over the past weekend who turned out to be good ole capitalists.

"Was it about winning elections?"

Bingo. Isn't it way, way past time that this crowd stops getting any benefit of the doubt?

I was speaking to my taxi driver in Munich the day this was announced and we both agreed that it would turn out to be fake and that it would just be a few kids shooting the shit about blowing things up.

I wonder if they will re-think the racial profiling in security and all the other crap they want to have us do, and I am pretty certain that that won't happen.

And, now the British are trying to change the security rules for aviation in the EU where it was pretty relaxed and still a joy to fly.

If someone had bet with Thomas1 3 years ago that Iraq had WMD, he would now pretend to cash in. You know, there were WMD... that link... whatever.

So sure, everybody is ready to bet with him that this was a plot, 20 planes should have exploded.
You know, the cousin of that guy they arrested attended once in a sermon of a hate-mullah, and his wife sent an email to the mother of a guy who acknowledged he knew Bin Laden and Chavez after not even 2 months in the "Pakistan security forces Inn". So Thomas wins.

The sad part is that Blair and Bush are slowly becoming as trustworthy for other head of states to deal with as Thomas.

Hey Guys, if you don't want to repsond to Thomas1 you can respond to me; and I don't believe you need a passport to blow up a plane

I keep telling you - There is no al-Qaeda. Period. Other than some nutcase wannabes like Zarqawi. There are lots and lots of angry Muslims, to be sure, especially after the wanton slaughter of Muslim people that has occurred since Bush seized power. But this is all a ruse - concocted by the same people who oversold the threat of the Soviet Union (Team B).

It's governance by fear. Plain and simple.

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours o serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argumen