Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was the London terrorist plot real?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 06:06 PM
Original message
Poll question: Was the London terrorist plot real?
Edited on Thu Aug-17-06 06:10 PM by welshTerrier2
This may come as a shock but our government lies to us ... in fact, their entire modus operandi is to "put out" whatever script is necessary to influence public opinion the way they want it to be ... fake events are staged for the desired effect and real events are spun and spun and spun again for the desired effect ...

Having said that, it is certainly true that there are tons of brand new conspiracy theories everyday ... many of them, while perhaps worth speculating about, are a wee bit wacky ... some are concerned that conspiracy theories "make us look like kooks" ... perhaps some of them do ...

But without them, it seems to me we are left with a propensity to just accept that which is "put out" ... we see something like the London plot and the very sane and rational among us, maybe they're from the "Show Me" state, explain that "we are way out there" and that "we can't be serious" and that "we have to get a grip" ... as i said, there are some pretty looney ideas being postulated by some of us ...

The problem, though, is that what these anti-conspiracy folks are saying may be totally rational and also totally wrong ... When confronted with the lying liars in the WH and their massive media spin machines, everything should be questioned ... No truth should just be accepted because it is rational or even credible ... A stronger criteria to evaluate events is that, even if events turn out to be true, anything that directly benefits the current administration is more likely to be a lie than to be the truth ... yes, that's a subjective standard ... it's the one I recommend ...

The bottom line is that "nobody knows nothin'" ... you can be as mature or responsible or rational or reasonable as you want to be; just realize, though, that much of what you know may very well have been scripted by people who are very, very good at writing scripts ... don't be so sure you really know what you know ... question everything ...

Here's yet another article in a parade of articles raising some very legitimate questions about the London "terrorist" plot ... is the author right? who knows ... is he right to question the "official line"? you're damned straight ...


source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0817-26.htm

From all official statements so far, we are led to believe that August 10 was a highly developed, far-advanced conspiracy, under surveillance for some time, which could have been put into action within just a few days. And perhaps 8/10 really was the biggest thing since 9/11. But then again, perhaps it wasn't. We don't know yet. And it's not too early to ask the questions on which final judgment must depend.

Well, then. Here is a checklist of some things we should shortly be hearing about. Bombs. Chemicals. Detonators. Labs. A testing ground. Airline tickets. Passports. Witnesses. Suspicious neighbors. Suspicious parents. Suspicious friends. Threats. Confessions. Let me spell this out: By definition, you cannot bomb an aircraft unless you have a bomb. In this case, we are told that there were no bombs; rather, the conspirators planned to bring on board the makings of a bomb: chemicals and a detonator. These would be mixed on board. <skip>

So, there must have been training. That means there must be a lab, or labs. There must have been trial bombs. There must be various bits and pieces of equipment used to mix the chemicals and set them off. There must be a manual. There must be a testing ground. And each one of the young men under arrest must have been to these places. Interestingly, it must have all happened, too, without a serious accident, injury or death among the conspirators. If so, they are a lot more competent than the Weather Underground ever was, in my day.

Arrests were made at night, catching the culprits at home. Houses have been raided, and are being searched. So far as we know at this point, no bombs have been found. No chemicals. No equipment. No labs. No testing ground. Maybe this will come out later, but it hasn't so far, even though the authorities seem anxious to tell just about everything they know. <skip>

Now, in order to get on an airplane, even the most devout suicide terrorist needs a ticket, and these generally must be purchased with money. Apparently, not one ticket had been purchased by the detainees. One little-known feature of airline security (in the United States, anyway) is that people traveling on one-way tickets bought at the last minute get special scrutiny at the gate. Those tickets are also (a lot) more expensive. If you want to pass unnoticed, you will buy your ticket round-trip, in advance, and also save money like everyone else. <skip>


The poll question is: Was the London "terrorist" plot real?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. It depends on what the meaning
of 'real' is... ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yep, it depends on the meaning of "real"
There seems to be less to this "plot" than what the Bush regime made it out to be. Even if it were a real plot, the point is that the Bush regime brought the investigation to an untimely end. Most of the "plotters" did not even have passports.

Do these people ever tell the truth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. I wonder if they rounded up a few "extras" .... just to have a good crowd
myself.

I also suspect the first or second guy that they released was "the informant."

I really don't know, though.

The bit about airline tickets is USUALLY true, but at times you can get very good "last minute deals" at way under the list price, and beating even the advance-purchase fares. That said, if true, it does seem a bit odd that no tickets were bought, unless this plan was in very early stages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theanarch Donating Member (523 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. no more "real" than the Miami Seven, Jose...
..."dirty bomber" Padilla, the Wal-Mart cell phone black-marketers, or the internet prattle of chat-room malcontents...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Other: plot real, key plotters probably working both sides.
So I think this looks like a more sophisticated version of the miami 7 idiocy. At least one of the leaders was a gummint guy - so real plot, as far as it went, which as many have pointed out was not far at all, but never anything more than a show ready to run whenever the bust would be convenient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. We are terribly lucky that no planes were actually blown up
over the Pacific in that terrorist incident.

We have our own unquestioning abject fear to thank.

Our governments no longer have to murder large numbers
of people and explode imposing edifices in order to
keep us in complete submission.

Having been badly bitten, we now react appropriately
to the occasional episode of loud barking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. "over the Pacific "?
I think that there was little chance at all of a UK->US flight blowing up over the pacific, but I could be wrong.


Perhaps you are referring to the earlier east asian plot to blow up planes. That plot was a bit more real than its latest recycling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
i don't think so ... and that's in the Pacific ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Indeed.
Otter (Tim Matheson): Germans?
Boon (Peter Riegert): Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough... the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. Other...
I think there was a group of people up to something, but hardly worth the big brouhaha made of it.

(And, had our feckless leaders not pushed the Brits to make arrests so quickly, they MIGHT have uncovered a more important link or two given the time to investigate -- but who knows?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-17-06 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. A group of people up to something. I like that.
Now if we can just get that written into law, The National Security Forces (NSF) could arrest just about anybody at any time. NSF sounds so much pleasanter than SS (Security Echelon=Schutzstaffel). O brave new world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LUHiWY Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
12. Get real?
Proactive police ?


"Proactive policing is pre-emptive. "In this 'pre-emptive' view, any citizen, certainly any socially uncharacteristic citizen, is a target for suspicion and observation". In other words, the crime is stopped before it is perpetrated."

-------

Or, if the crime is committed, the State can reconstruct evidence gained before the commission of the crime:

"Substantial evidence of this development can be found by examining the role of police information and intelligence gathering".

Proponents of pro-active policing believe that society is better served by focusing its attention and resources on a minority of society to protect the free society institutions against the threat from the criminal elements of that society."

The opponents of pro-active policing believe that, if left unregulated, police agencies could be used to suppress civil liberties and unpopular opinions. Governments may pressure agencies to monitor opposition groups to gain intelligence on their tactics.

Such practices can be rationalised as protecting the free institutions of the State. As governments become less popular, they will be tempted to increase their surveillance to suppress the opposition.



"Proactive policing is pre-emptive. "In this 'pre-emptive' view, any citizen, certainly any socially uncharacteristic citizen, is a target for suspicion and observation". In other words, the crime is stopped before it is perpetrated."

-------

Or, if the crime is committed, the State can reconstruct evidence gained before the commission of the crime:

"Substantial evidence of this development can be found by examining the role of police information and intelligence gathering".

Proponents of pro-active policing believe that society is better served by focusing its attention and resources on a minority of society to protect the free society institutions against the threat from the criminal elements of that society."

The opponents of pro-active policing believe that, if left unregulated, police agencies could be used to suppress civil liberties and unpopular opinions. Governments may pressure agencies to monitor opposition groups to gain intelligence on their tactics.

Such practices can be rationalised as protecting the free institutions of the State. As governments become less popular, they will be tempted to increase their surveillance to suppress the opposition.

.........

So they do the intelligence work...profiling....etc. They find some likely "suspects"...they cajole them into commiting a crime...then they bust them.

Was it real?

Should you fear the terrorists...or should you fear the fascists?

You be the judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC