foiled terrorist plot?

[spazz]

Luckily the Brits followed in Americas footsteps with a similar piece of legislation as the patriot act, or we would of potentially lost more lives today then in Pearl Harbor or September 11. What do you guys think about the foiled plot?

[Urbannaja]

Originally Posted by spazz

Luckily the Brits followed in Americas footsteps with a similar piece of legislation as the patriot act, or we would of potentially lost more lives today then in Pearl Harbor or September 11. What do you guys think about the foiled plot?

The plot wasn't set for today (this is just when they got rolled up)- but yea, the brits are taking it seriously

[bawhitsett]

It's just funny how these things only seem to happen in times leading up to an election.

[spazz]

Originally Posted by Urbannaja

The plot wasn't set for today (this is just when they got rolled up)- but yea, the brits are taking it seriously

I heard most of them got caught in the brit airports. Then one guy got caught in turkey on a plane to the US and he was tackled to the ground when he tried to break into the cockpit.

[snazzlefrag]

Originally Posted by spazz

I heard most of them got caught in the brit airports. Then one guy got caught in turkey on a plane to the US and he was tackled to the ground when he tried to break into the cockpit.

I believe they were arrested in early morning raids on homes in various places across England. They were in the "last stages" of planning, but weren't actually at the point of going to the airport or boarding planes etc.

That's even more encouraging, because it means they were busted long before they ever got a chance to pose an immediate and imminent threat to traveling passengers.

Of course, the unfortunate thing about terrorists is that they can succeed in eliciting terror and chaos without actually having to carry out their evil plans. Politicians know this, and seem more than willing to capitalize on these kinds of events for political gain. I do think we are much more likely to hear news of foiled terror plots, raised threat levels, and the capture or killing of key terrorist leaders, when there is an election on the horizon. You can almost set your watch by it.

As was the case throughout the summer of 2004, I wonder if we are going to see a marked increase in the number of terrorist events and raised threat levels etc., until this November. In the run-up to the 2004 election, we seemed to have two or three 'events' a week. Then amazingly, after November's election night, all was suddenly quiet on the western front.

I am thrilled that these terrorists were caught. I am relieved whenever a terror plot is thwarted. However, I can't help feeling as though we are all being manipulated like puppets when it comes to the TIMING of things.

I don't wear a tin-foil hat, but I do keep one eye on the calendar. It speaks volumes!

[Basket Weaver]

I have to admit I'm not feeling too good about flying next week when my family & I fly from England to Germany for a one week vacation. I think it's great Scotland Yard was able to make so many arrests in such a short time. What's strange to me is that most of these people were under surveilance prior to this. Make me wonder what the fix is going to be. It seems that every attempted attack takes more and more of our freedoms away and slowly they are winning without even taking a life. I have my thoughts on how they should be dealt with, I'll just say for about 38 cents apiece the immediate problem would be solved. However, what do you do about the large populations of muslims living here in Enland and the US, (most of whom wish no one any harm) how do you differenciate the good from the bad? This is going to be the golden question if the attacks escalate, in fact I would imagine we each have asked ourselves this at one time in recent years.

[spazz]

Originally Posted by Basket Weaver

I have to admit I'm not feeling too good about flying next week when my family & I fly from England to Germany for a one week vacation. I think it's great Scotland Yard was able to make so many arrests in such a short time. What's strange to me is that most of these people were under surveilance prior to this. Make me wonder what the fix is going to be. It seems that every attempted attack takes more and more of our freedoms away and slowly they are winning without even taking a life. I have my thoughts on how they should be dealt with, I'll just say for about 38 cents apiece the immediate problem would be solved. However, what do you do about the large populations of muslims living here in Enland and the US, (most of whom wish no one any harm) how do you differenciate the good from the bad? This is going to be the golden question if the attacks escalate, in fact I would imagine we each have asked ourselves this at one time in recent years.

I am sure everything will be fine. This is just like other things in history, it passes with time. Just like the red scare, etc. However, if not bringing shampoo and other bottles of liquid on planes saves lives, then I am all for it. I do not consider this giving up any freedom as it is something that obviously is not a big deal and it solves a temp problem.

I believe the real solution to terror is terror itself. If they blow up a building, we blow up a city. Although I know this would not happen anytime soon because of how liberal the media is, the govt gets prosecuted for killing a terrorist now a days. But if this terrorism deal gets so out of hand, I am sure we will do something similar.

[Urbannaja]

Originally Posted by spazz

I am sure everything will be fine. This is just like other things in history, it passes with time. Just like the red scare, etc. However, if not bringing shampoo and other bottles of liquid on planes saves lives, then I am all for it. I do not consider this giving up any freedom as it is something that obviously is not a big deal and it solves a temp problem.

I believe the real solution to terror is terror itself. If they blow up a building, we blow up a city. Although I know this would not happen anytime soon because of how liberal the media is, the govt gets prosecuted for killing a terrorist now a days. But if this terrorism deal gets so out of hand, I am sure we will do something similar.

Well, I think because politics is so important to so many people in government, it becomes more advantageous to leak information at specific times. This is just made alot easier because you only need *one* person to leak it out of the thousands that know. Compound this by the insane voracity of the media to broadcast anything about government secrets...and there ya go. Terror plots are foiled all the time, it's just unfortunately in human nature to use that information (on both sides) for personal gain.

I'd feel relatively safe about flying right now....this new plot actually shows some fairly predictable, inept qualities by core AQ that intel orgs have capitalized on. What to worry about? Domestic radicalization. As much as the media portrays the government as stomping on freedoms, there's a ton of freedom for radicalized Americans to operate, and almost nothing we can do but watch.

[snazzlefrag]

Originally Posted by spazz

I believe the real solution to terror is terror itself. If they blow up a building, we blow up a city. Although I know this would not happen anytime soon because of how liberal the media is, the govt gets prosecuted for killing a terrorist now a days. But if this terrorism deal gets so out of hand, I am sure we will do something similar.

I understand your point, and agree to a certain extent: We do need to hit them, and hit them hard.

However, let's take these guys who got caught today. They come from High Wycombe, a small and peaceful town in the south of England (not unlike my own quaint little home town). Let's say they succeeded in blowing up a plane, or a building or whatever. Which city exactly would WE blow up in retaliation? Hopefully not High Wycombe, although this would seem the obvious choice because it is their home city. So do we just pick a city at random? If so, in which country? How would we decide which city deserves to be destroyed?

We are facing a unique enemy. It doesn't have one name, one leader, one uniform, one army, one country. Eye for an eye has its limitations when you can't figure out which eye to strike.

As for the liberal media: I would DESIRE them to speak out if we blow up a couple of hundred thousand innocent men, women, and children in a city that has NO relationship to these English guys we caught today. What would distinguish US from the TERRORISTS then?

Of course I would like to put an end, once and for all, to these terrorists. But I don't think that blowing up cities is the answer. And I certainly don't EVER want to live in a country where the media has no voice, where the government has no accountability, and the nation desires only bloody vengeance regardless of the consequences on innocent human life. I think they tried that in Germany during the middle of the last century. It didn't work out too well for ANYONE.

Fight back? Yes! Blow up a city full of innocent people because they happen to speak the same language as 24 English terrorists, or because they share the same religion, have the same color skin, wear the same style of clothing? No way! For THAT would make ME a terrorist too.

I would hope that this type of action would never be permitted in this country, not because the "liberal media" won't allow it, but because "we the people" won't allow it. We're better than that!

[spazz]

Originally Posted by snazzlefrag

I understand your point, and agree to a certain extent: We do need to hit them, and hit them hard.

However, let's take these guys who got caught today. They come from High Wycombe, a small and peaceful town in the south of England (not unlike my own quaint little home town). Let's say they succeeded in blowing up a plane, or a building or whatever. Which city exactly would WE blow up in retaliation? Hopefully not High Wycombe, although this would seem the obvious choice because it is their home city. So do we just pick a city at random? If so, in which country? How would we decide which city deserves to be destroyed?

We are facing a unique enemy. It doesn't have one name, one leader, one uniform, one army, one country. Eye for an eye has its limitations when you can't figure out which eye to strike.

As for the liberal media: I would DESIRE them to speak out if we blow up a couple of hundred thousand innocent men, women, and children in a city that has NO relationship to these English guys we caught today. What would distinguish US from the TERRORISTS then?

Of course I would like to put an end, once and for all, to these terrorists. But I don't think that blowing up cities is the answer. And I certainly don't EVER want to live in a country where the media has no voice, where the government has no accountability, and the nation desires only bloody vengeance regardless of the consequences on innocent human life. I think they tried that in Germany during the middle of the last century. It didn't work out too well for ANYONE.

Fight back? Yes! Blow up a city full of innocent people because they happen to speak the same language as 24 English terrorists, or because they share the same religion, have the same color skin, wear the same style of clothing? No way! For THAT would make ME a terrorist too.

I would hope that this type of action would never be permitted in this country, not because the "liberal media" won't allow it, but because "we the people" won't allow it. We're better than that!

You make a good point although there are many governments out there ran by these Muslim radicals. One recent one is Lebanon which their main political party is a terrorist organization which has been in the news lately. There are so many more countries in the Middle East like this; Iran is a big one we need to take down before they get nuclear capabilities. The country to worry about this the most would be Israel considering one nuke could wipe out the entire country and Iran has been the one supplying Hezbollah with bombs/rockets. Iran would be a good start, or ANY city/country that supports terrorism (most of the Middle East). We need to send them a strong message instead of just trying to prevent this bullshit from happening and gaining political support.

I would rather destroy a city full of people who want to sacrifice themselves for the good of the god (or to kill anyone that goes against their religion), then a city filled with people who just want to live life. No matter which path you take, innocent lives are going to be taken.

The reason we lose so many troops in Iraq is because of the media. If an American soldier opens fire into a crowd of people with guns and kills 10 people, kids and men. The media turns it into that we killed 10 innocent people just trying to go to work or some shit. It is absolutely ridiculous. This is the reason for the ridiculous rules of engagement. Then the media turns it into some big bullshit to discredit the Republican Party (bush) and the soldier who has a family goes to trial for murdering 10 innocent people? I would like to see you walking the streets of Iraq with potential terrorist passing you by with ak47's in their hands and not being able to do a thing until they fire at you. Then you can only fire back at the guy who shoots at you, no one else. Because god knows, if you end up killing a terrorist that has not opened fire yet, then you killed an innocent person.