mogster

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Aug-12-06 01:49 PM
Original message

The Plot: An information bomb to keep the unbelievers at bay

And contain the 911 'conspiracy'. That's my take on this new terror-plot. It had begun to spill over, and people and media over here in Europe had also begun talking about the 'conspiracy theories' surrounding the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.
Talking about it as conspiracy theories only, but still; talking about it.
Of course, there's a lot of synergy effects and the plot also took the heat of Israel, and forwarded the general impression that terror (still) lives on in our midst, ready to kill. Which it does, no doubt about that.

10 iPods, 10 bottles of Gatorade, a couple of intelligence agents, some liquid 'compounds' to be mixed, forged papers and a group of people picked out to be branded as terrorists - that's all needed to set of the information bomb.

Rid yourself of this image:

A Mass Murder Was Prevented

For three hours the mass murdes was to go on in mid-air. 2.700 lives could have been lost.

The headline over is based on the rather meager story by a few people 'in the know', the planes are just there to make it look bigger, more credible, and when it goes that big, we can't really believe it can be a lie.

But it can. We know it can, because the same people providing information for this plot lied to us all before the Iraqi invasion. On a grand scale, but with really cheap measures as far as people involved, physical evidence presented and so on.
What we saw then was a few, handpicked details and then we believed this to be the tip of the iceberg of what the guys 'in the know' really had, but wouldn't tell us because of security measures.

Take a look at the immensity of it all; 10 airplanes and 2.700 people - that is of 911 magnitude, a fact not escaping the media, and those people now using it for political purposes are of course flogging that as best they can. It was a similar plot also in that it was supposed to use airplanes, stirring our irrational fear of flying, the place where we're at our most vulnerable. Sitting ducks - that's airline passengers.

It is a significant detail that this plot was going down in the UK. Who would distrust these guys intentions?

Answer: Nobody. And we shouldn't, because they're just doing their job. When told to arrest or protect, they arrest and protect.
But such images builds the theory; how could it be a lie if it involves the Met police and the Scotland Yard? The plods?

They're truth witnesses to the authenticity of the story, just as the planes on the first picture.
Now, who was the most truthworthy guy in the Bush govt. before Iraq? It was Colin Powell, and he presented the 'evidence' in that infamous session of the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003. He lied, and I saw that he lied as he spoke, because I've followed this guy out of the corner of my eye since 1991.
(They lied that time around too, don't forget the Kuwaiti nurse testifying about the babies taken out of incubators and being smashed against the floor, that turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US.)

It's all about finding a trustworthy witness, a person or situation building on the cred of the story. Imagine this as happening in the US, for instance at the RR airport. It would have backfired at once, because the US authorities don't have any credibility anymore in:
1. The US, among the population and in parts of the media. Any normal person following Bush' policy would distrust him, and even the stoned evangelicals would not take his words as face value anymore, if not backed by solid facts.
2. Europe, among the population and the media. We see only Bush, and his reputation is very, very bad. That should be; very, very, very bad.

The reputation of the UK authorities, in the US, isn't that bad. I have, half jokingly, expressed that we may have to live with Tony Blair's status as a US hero, forever. He was there right after 911, and soothingly expressed his role as an US ally, and the feelings of the American public towards Britain soared.
Good for him, it's about the only right thing he's done in his career.
In Europe, the UK authorities also has a better reputation than the US authorities, and at least up to 2004 it was widely believed that TB and his men did all they could to contain Bush' madness by going along with his wars. I had a real problem with it all because of Tony Blair, because he used to be considered a very good politician, and as for the Brits - well, you just trust the Brits to do the right thing, that's how it is, at least here in Norway.
(If we should go into details, the population of Britain and the US both did the right thing up and until Powell's lies in the UN - both was firmly against the Iraqi invasion, just as in every other nation on Earth).
Besides, nobody questions the authenticity of the London attack on 7/7, 2005, while the 911 attack has some inexplaniable dirty dishes.

So, let's look at the setting in which this terror plot is going down, and the contents of the plot.
If we are to believe it's a lie, we must first look at the history of lies.

I've mentioned Colin Powell and the incredible load of bullshit he told us in the UN Sec. Council. This was lies, folks! All of it.
It was MIHOP behaviour; concocted reality in place of reality to produce a certain effect - support for the Iraqi invasion.
But it wasn't just Powell, it was the whole world buying the rethoric leading up to that session. Weapons of Mass Destruction was the most used term on the planet in 2002, so widely used they had to shorten it to WMD.
We didn't question the authenticity of those weapons, we only couldn't understand the urgency to remove them; after all, Hussein had kept them since 1991 without any trouble.
Then it was the different scenarios for the invasion; was it gonna be supported by the UN or not?

In Norway, the polls about wether one supported an invasion or not didn't have the usual 'for' or 'against', but three questions; for an UN-supported invasion, for a US/UK-led invasion and against any invasion at all.
The numbers in spring 2003 was firmly against any Norwegian involvement no matter what, here's a graph I made of the polls up and until April 10, no more polls were noted after this point. It's in Norwegian, but look at the graph.

The red marks the 'no to a UN-led coalition' and the grey is 'yes to a UN-led coalition'.
I didn't put in the no or yes to a US/UK-led invasion (the existing scenario), but the numbers were even higher; only 9% supported a US/UK-led invasion, while more than 80% was against.
In that graph you can spot Colin Powell's lies taking effect in my country, bringing the 'against war' below 50%, and the 'pro war' up towards 45%. Then free media started to question the evidence and the war debate produced a nay again.
In the US, this was what swung the opinion in favour of war, and the media kept propelling it upwards without daring to question the content of the 'evidence'.
Note also the mid-January shift in the poll; where the nay sayers started to loose momentum. It was when the war rethoric accellerated, and a row of events occurred that would be culminated by Powell's presentation, and ultimately; with the Shock and Awe on March 20, 2003.

The ricin that never was

01.23.2003
"New ricin suspect arrested in Britan
Brtitsh anti-terror police has arrested another person suspected for connections with the ricin found in an appartment in London earlier in January.
(..)
The 31 year old man arrested Thursday is of north African origins. He's number 8 to be arrested in connection with the ricin found in a flat in north London January 5."
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article476980.ece

Turned out to be bullshit:

04.23.2005
"Terror-posison was a bluff
The claimed terrorists arrested in London prior to the invasion in Iraq was not at all posessing the lethal poison Ricin, as it was claimed.
(..)
The news about the ricin-find went all around the world and added to whip up the terror fear in the weeks before the invasion.
The British police the next days arrested close to a hundred men with presumed ties to the terror network A-Queda. Five of them was later charged with direct connections to the claimed ricin-find.

Vice-president Dick Cheney, a spokesperson for president George W. Bush and the Foreign Secretary Colin Powell was among those mentioning the ricin-find.
(..)
During the trial against the five charged after the ricin-find in London information have surfaced that no ricin was found, or any other poison, in the London flat, a fact which also was known to C. Powell before he briefed the security council."
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/irak/article1024667.ece

Here's the flat where ricin was claimed to be found. It is now a ordinary house, but at the time it looked like the spooky mc spookster club. All in our imagination:

Now, compare it to the house further up and tell me how that house makes you feel ...

The two links about this episode are Norwegian, here's the Guardian story about the trial collapse:
"Yesterday's trial collapse has exposed the deception behind attempts to link al-Qaida to a 'poison attack' on London.

Colin Powell does not need more humiliation over the manifold errors in his February 2003 presentation to the UN. But yesterday a London jury brought down another section of the case he made for war - that Iraq and Osama bin Laden were supporting and directing terrorist poison cells throughout Europe, including a London ricin ring.
(...)
It is true that when the team from Porton Down entered the Wood Green flat in January 2003, their field equipment registered the presence of ricin. But these were high sensitivity field detectors, for use where a false negative result could be fatal. A few days later in the lab, the team found that there was no ricin. But when this result was passed to London, the message reportedly said the opposite.
(...)
The most ironic twist was an attempt to introduce an "al-Qaida manual" into the case. The manual - called the Manual of the Afghan Jihad - had been found on a raid in Manchester in 2000. It was given to the FBI to produce in the 2001 New York trial for the first attack on the World Trade Centre. But it wasn't an al-Qaida manual. The name was invented by the US department of justice in 2001, and the contents were rushed on to the net to aid a presentation to the Senate by the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, supporting the US Patriot Act.

To show that the Jihad manual was written in the 1980s and the period of the US-supported war against the Soviet occupation was easy. The ricin recipe it contained was a direct translation from a 1988 US book called the Poisoner's Handbook, by Maxwell Hutchkinson."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1585130,00.html

An Al-Queda manual. Today we have another Al-Queda manual, to prove this idea has been floating around for some time. It is widely used by rw bloggers (and the media) to 'prove' the likelyhood of this plot.

So, what do you think about the ricin episode? It was a lie that grew out of faulty apparatus and was taken as fact despite evidence to the contrary, at best. At worst, and I think that's more plausible, it was a set up to 'find' ricin, because everybody knew Hussein had weapons of mass destruction anyway, and that he, most likely, had connections to Al-Queda. He had a 'history' of not complying with the UN inspectors and was likely to do anything to hurt the US and the UK. And UK terror cells fits that picture.
Nevermind the data, they can be sexed up, to fit what 'we' know anyway, and want you to 'know' as well.

This is an example of that up sexing, and just as with this current episode, a huge number of police and terror-experts was involved. Media, the establishment, the public - they all ate it raw. It even went to trial. And only because a few men wanted it, and lied. That's the part that's interesting in the perspective we're taking; that the new shining terror plot may not be at all what it appears to be.

The catch 22 of the New World Order

The government can lie blandly to the public through the media, who can't dispute the facts delivered by the government because the secrecy involved by the government doesn't reveal the detailed facts about the case in question to them - it is hidden behind the various laws put up after 911 - subsequently, they will have to trust the data they're given by the government. The reason given by the government for the secrecy is that they can't reveal data about terror plot's for national security reasons, this would give the terrorists a glimpse into the methods of how the 'war' on terror is fought, and, supposedly, develop counter measures.

Further, the media can't attempt to investigate for themselves, because everybody who 'consorts with terrorists' will at worst become a suspect, at best be seen to disrupt the secret agents and police working to find the culprits, under the strong group pressure put in place by the government, forwarded by the same media. There's no media 'embedded' with the terrorists, that's for sure. If you investigate the government, you will be seen as disrupting the secret agents and the police work to find the culprits, and may lose contacts. Which, in turn, may lead to the paper losing money, you losing prominence internally in the paper, and may end in replacemnet by another journo that is more govt. friendly and better at googling.

Further, the terrorists purportedly live among us in the society and has no special external clues that they may be recognized on, apart from them being Muslims. If you interview the families, they'd say the terrorists was only like ordinary people. Even ordinary British-Pakistanis go on ordinary trips to Pakistan. They will send ordinary money meant for ordinary poor people they know, or support of some religious/cultural group they support. You don't brand ordinary people as terrorists, subsequently you go easy on the families and surroundings, and trust the govt. info about the travels or money-trails. And you don't want to broadsweep a whole minority anyway, so you abstain from writing to much about it because the main source of information, the suspected terrorist, are gone.

Further, every other suspect will be put in custody in secret prisons, and maybe even shipped away to Guantanamo Bay, Diego Garcia or some other remote location, making it harder to get to first hand sources. At any rate, getting to the information they have is difficult even if they're detained on homeland, and there will possibly be slapped a censorship at some of the information they might give you.

Further, the laws created after 911 allows for keeping prisoners in legal limbo for a longer time without trial and justice, enabling the lie to go on and do the work it was intended to do.

Further, when the lie has gone it's course, you're at war. And during war, lying to the public isn't that controversial - it's even recommended.

A spanner in the wheel of lies

Only if somebody are in the know, and have an independent status outside the govt., will there be a possibility to get information that contradicts the official version. Now, how does the 'suicide' of David Kelly look in this perspective? Not to mention the attack on the BBC credibility in the aftermath, a beacon of freedom of speech if there ever was one. The credibility which, incidentally, happened to be about just that; sexing up data, forging reality, and the people who did so.
A year later it revealed to us one of their major players; Lord Hutton, who exonerated the British government and passed all the blame to the BBC. Of course after a long and thorough 'investigation' that took nearly a year. In the meantime, UK forces was firmly mired in Iraq and phony Tony was able to use the 'unfair accusations against the government' to arm twist the rest of the media. Group pressure.
If there ever was a stupid episode that made me see the light about the British government, it was the hubbub around the BBC journo mr. Gilligan and the government. It was an episode just as construed and sexed up as the reason for it, and it represented a blatant attack on the free press. And went down right before our eyes. Now the Kelly suicide is questioned again, and it's about time.

The current episode of foiled terror-attacks

It is against this background of lies and deception we must see the current plot, and the disclosure of another 911 in the offing.
To be fair, it's against this backdrop we must see 911 itself; the proven lies of some few men and their proven willingness to go very far to get their way outweighs every physical evindence concerning the 911 theories.
You can pile a mountain of evidence; as long as it's not credible that the leader of the country is likely to harm the citizens, no one will believe it. If it's not likely that he would lie to the population, the population will rather believe the leader than the people bringing out the contradicting evidence. They will have faith in him and not people they don't know. If they're religious people, this effect will be even stronger, so they'll hang on longer.
Lying to and cheating their own population, their own electorate, the public at large, means nothing to these people, nor does loss of life among that population, as long as it serves their political plans.
They have proved it in Iraq, with a ill-concieved, poor-planned, self-enriching, lie-infested war, which, if it had any credibility to start with, has been proven utterly morally invalid by the use of torture, Halliburton's swollen bank accounts and the total mayhem that goes on in a country that was, believe it or not, by now to be 'free' and 'democratic'.

So, that's point number one - are they capable of doing this plot as a pure lie due to their historical, proven actions? The answer is yes.

Here's a list of reasonable questions, based on the assumption that this plot was meda up to underbuild the official 911 story and contain the conspiracy theories (along with a lot of other synergic effects):
1. Are they capable, politically, of doing this?
A: Yes, no doubt. There was some traces of media questioning the plot, but they've resorted to the old line. You'd think they had a lot of doubt privately, though.

2. Are they capable, as organizational procedures go, of doing this? Is it likely?
A: Yes, it was a cooperation between US intelligence, British intelligence and Pakistani intelligence, two responsible for building bin Laden, all used to lie to the public, two was involved in the lie-up to the invasion of Iraq, all partners in 'war' on terror. And who knows what else.
All have comitted themselves beyond what you'd expect from the intelligence services in forwarding the 'war' on terror uncritically, so they too may have a lot to lose if 911 is talked about openly.

3. Do they have the means?
A: Yes, surely. Somebody really need to have a look at where that $2,3 trillion Pentagon money went. Besides, this is supposed to be an attack made by terrorists, with measures available to terrorists. iPods and Gatorade. There would be a wider operation, though, to support the story and see to the crucial media bit.

4. Are they sexing it up?
A: Yes, of course. iPod and Gatorade. The compound for explosives was dubbed "Satan's Mother" by a Norwegian paper, no doubt quoting an American journo, and maybe even the original govt. sources. The 'islamic fascism'-bit by Bush.
Summary: 'They're in our midst, now taking over the music and the sports too, and using Satan's mother to blow you up while you're on your way home from holiday.'
And the press favors the police-line immensely when a society seems threatened, so we get a lot of sexy cops with bigguns. I mean big guns.

'We are threatened. Seek cover and don't ask questions.'

We get big pictures of big planes to make the whole story bigger:

We get small men and big planes to make the story bigger, and a reason for his pundits to escalate him:

This picture was captioned:
"STRONG AND CLEAR: President George W. Bush called the people behind the terror plans �islamic fascists�."
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/08/10/473548.html

Is it a coincidence that Bush made his speech in front of AF1? ;-)
'Let's bring out the big planes, people won't take notice of details.'

In addition, the media will drag up previous attacks (and let's not forget those), and list the spooky people-of-terror in a 'grausame salbe':

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/08/10/473528.html

All the pictures used here are from the local news since the plot was disclosed.
Can you feel the pull from these pictures, how they underbuild the current plot? I do.

The people are innocent, the police are being used, and all media behaviour may be attributed to the catch 22.

'Here the authorities says we're being attacked and you dare to come with conspiracy theories about they cooking it up? Show some responsibility.'

It's just not done, and even though there's a history of lies and exaggregated terror ploys, the media fail to speak out. They will at least wait until the initiate emergency is over, and by the time it's over they have themselves cemented the fact that it was an attack (or a foiled one) as a truth.
Besides, sex sells and so also does terror. It's a fact you can't get around. It goes to the base; safety, and has a lot of power in drawing readers/viewers to the media outlets.
That means money, and against that combination of government arm twist, fear of apparent attacks and greed stands only free journalism, an idea that has been corrupted for decades to a level where the responsibility for society has been replaced by a corporate 'at your pleasure'-attitude.
So the media would sex it up. If you want fear, we give you fear. If you want sex, we give you sex.

Bush is also sexing up his language considerably by using the term 'islamic fascists'. It's a new 'axis of evil' or 'shock and awe' - a little step forward out of the closet, to become a dictator also in public. Who was the intended target group? Muslims? Hardly, I see it as a back slap to rw'ers world wide, and another slap in the face of multi-culture.
It's the Great Divider at work, because he knows that if people was naturally left to unite, they would unite against him.

What a true piece of shit he is, pathetic little man standing in front of his big plane. DOH! :D
So far the islamic fascists have pulled your nose every day in Iraq, George. You haven't got the supposed perpetrator of 911, Osama bin Laden, nor have you got to any of the goals that's your public 'version' of the US policy.

5. How was it done?
A: I would guess a large public relations firm got the contract, like with the Kuwaiti nurse more than a decade ago. Maybe the intelligence services has their own company dedicated to setting up the public relations, against media and against the public? I don't think they lack any firepower in that area. It would be a mere shift in relative thinking for a commercial company; they would be as susceptible to armtwist-fear-greed as the commercial media. Basically: if your government wants it, it's legal and should be commercially exploited.
You would need a story-writer, a script, and a group of people to hack out the plot and put together a timeline.
Now, film-makers and professional makers of commercials would be valuable, because they hack reality and sells us another version all the time. So you put together a short storyboard, so that everybody involved can get an idea of the scope; when does it begin, what are the different 'golden moments' supposed to be, and when does it end?

Here's a take:
This plot supposedly started in summer of 2005, when a member of the British Muslim community told somebody about the group in question, and that he felt 'uneasy' about them. His name will of course never be revealed, it can be understood even if you take the official version for granted. But why does this sound like a page from 'What we need to broadcast to the Muslims'?
The intelligence services - I would guess we'd be talking about Pentagon/CIA, ISI and MI6 - followed the trail to Pakistan after keeping these people under surveillance for a long period of time. It was revealed during an intercept recently that they might do an attack any day now, and had to be taken out.

"A British government source said an intercepted message from Pakistan telling the bombers to "go now" had triggered the arrests. Security sources said they had been planning to break up the cells in the next few days, but were forced to move earlier to prevent huge loss of life; they believed the attacks were to take place in the next two days."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1842272,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

Further down the article is this:
"The American news network NBC quoted an unnamed counterterrorism official as saying that more than one of the plotters had prepared a martyrdom videotape, while at least one had attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan."

That last info is interesting. So we have a terrorist training camp in Pakistan, that the authorities know about, but does not close down? ISI has total control over there, it is apparent. So one of the suspected terrorists was at that camp, and recieved training.

More:
"John Reid, the home secretary, chaired meetings of Cobra, the cabinet emergencies committee, on Wednesday night and yesterday morning as the police operation took place. Tony Blair was kept informed of the operation while on holiday in Barbados. Mr Reid said that if the bombers had succeeded they would have caused death on an "unprecedented scale"."

The biggest attack on Britain has been under surveillance and was about to be taken apart in a couple of days, but Blair goes on holiday? And stays on holiday while they unroll the terror cell?

'Oh, and remember that Blair must be away from the plot. Far away. The mere look of him speaking about it may discredit it. Let John Reid or somebody front this.'

"Extraordinary security measures were put in place in British airports from 3am yesterday, causing chaos for thousands. Hundreds of long-haul flights were cancelled, and passengers were banned from taking luggage on board. In the US, officials stopped drinks being taken on flights and issued its highest terrorism alert for commercial flights from Britain."

This is the most damning evidence - the public disruptions. The 'no more iPods' or 'drinks' or 'hair-gel' in combination with people being left inside planes for hours, queuing up for security checks and so on. The huge impact on daily business where the public is made to see that we're in the 'war' on terror, reminded of it and at the same time have to give up another freedom; the freedom of drinks! :D
No I'm kidding, but couldn't this have been made to go down in a more smooth and professional way if there had been a year of surveillance and two days warning of the attack period? Come on, this is the biggest to go down since 911 if we're to believe their public version. They must have had a pretty good sized force on this, have had good control on each suspect's movement.
According to ABC, they had an undercover operative inside the cell:

"Operation Overt, the British called it, though they cracked it using covert means.

They had an undercover operative deep inside the group of at least 30 terrorists who had developed a simple, effective and potentially devastating plan to close the world's busiest airport, Heathrow, by carrying on small but deadly bombs concealed in sports drink containers and detonated by the flash of a disposable camera, intelligence and law enforcement officials told ABC News."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/british_penetra.html

'Operation Overt the British called it'.

o�vert (-v�rt, v�rt)
adj.
1. Open and observable; not hidden, concealed, or secret: overt hostility; overt intelligence gathering.
2. Of, relating to, or being military or intelligence operations sanctioned or mandated by Congress: overt aid to the rebels.

'Operation Open and Observable', 'Operation Overt Hostility' or 'Operation Millitary or Intelligence Operations Sanctioned By Or Mandated By Congress'? Maybe a combination.
Maybe it was Operation Overt Aid to the Rebels.
So, apparently they had an undercover agent inside the cell. Was he 'helping' them a little, maybe?

"When the arrests were made Thursday morning, the plotters had reached the point of identifying airlines and routes, but had not yet picked flight numbers. An arrest in Pakistan two days ago prompted authorities to begin to their round-up of suspects. It appears the arrest in Pakistan would have quickly tipped the suspected terrorists to the undercover probe, and perhaps caused them to disperse, so authorities moved quickly.

But five key members of the cell -- described by authorities as the ringleaders -- remain at large. The hunt for them, inside the U.K. and by intelligence and law enforcement authorities around the world, continues."

The man arrested was Rashid Rauf, the brother of Tayib Rauf (21), one of the people arrested in Britain. He went to Pakistan in 2002, and was the one to trained in the Al-Queda camp, according to Pakistani intelligence. He's the alledged leader of the group, although media claims that the leader is still at large.

Why hadn't this planning gone further? Did they avoid flight and seat numbers solely to keep Condolezza Rice from tracking them down? ;-)
Airline routes doesn't change very often, but goes at regular intervals. Thinking that the whole plot hinges on the plan to do this at the same time on 10 airliners, you'd a-thought they would have given it some consideration, not to say looked at that point first.
But how would that fit with the disrupt the public-scenario? Operation Pick'em'out Silently vs. Operation Overt? No chance.

Let's say they silently had alerted the security at Heathrow about the people involved instead of hitting it big. With an insider you'd think they would have pictures, or at least very good descriptions, of the people involved. But no, it was an all-out public action causing a lot of hassle for ordinary people.

Why didn't they catch the leaders, and if they didn't catch the leaders, how come they knew that the planning for key factors like date and flights wasn't set yet? How much of a plot is there really without these key factors?

Here's some data from the Guardian:

"Neighbours said the pair regularly visited an Islamic bookshop on nearby Totteridge Drive, a blue-shuttered shop next to a grocer.

Zaffar Iqbal, a worker in the bookshop, said he knew the men's father, but did not know the brothers. He said the parent had emigrated from the Kashmiri region of Pakistan and initially worked in a clothing factory in the town. He dismissed any suggestion that the brothers may have been radicalised at his shop. "This is not a munitions supplier, this is a bookshop," he said.

Another neighbour, Ashiq Rasul, also defended the brothers. "They are good mates of mine, practising Muslims. Teachings in the mosque have taught them to not to speak back to their elders and commit any violent acts on innocent people. (One) has a baby girl and loves his wife to bits. He cares for his child. These guys would never do any terrorism.""
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1842307,00.html

Further information suggests that we should at leat extend our picture a bit concerning the people suspected:
"Another raid followed in nearby Folkestone Road at the home of Marylin Savant and her husband Ibrahim. On the electoral register are their sons Oliver and Adam, although neither of them lives there. Oliver, 25, was arrested elsewhere soon afterwards, but one family member said the experience had been terrifying for them all.

"Oliver is a just an ordinary family man who is expecting a new baby," said a relative. "He is a Muslim, he goes to the mosque but he is not the member of any organisation."

The relative said none of them had any idea why the arrest might have taken place and that Oliver's parents were blameless. "They are just two normal people. She is a bookkeeper and her computer was taken away. They are very upset and traumatised." Mrs Savant is believed to be of English origin while her husband was born in Iran."

I'll stop now, but this plot sounds just as bogus and half contrieved as the ricin plot prior to the Iraqi invasion. The parties involved has close to zero cred when it comes to previous behaviour; liars and secretive people capable of anything, also pulling off a stint like this to prop up the original 911. If I should look for the 'terror organization' behind it, I'd look at places like the Carlyle group, PNAC and AEI first, and the governments of US and Britain next, and the three intelligence services in question as third.
Why does Bush and Blair go on holiday just when something major is going down? Why the hell is NORAD on the move? Will the move affect the ability to spot incoming attacks?
Why do they go out of their way to offend Muslims in general by referring to 'islamic fascists' if we are to follow the logic of 'being afraid that other jihadist groups out there will attack'. Why go into a public iPod-wrenching, Gatorade-confiscating fit, when the investigation shows that they've had a pretty good stake out going on for a year, even an undercover agent inside the group, and should be able to identify more or less everybody? They arrested all the men in the course of a day or so, knew everybody's home address et cetera.

The latest development in the case is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4787075.stm

I'd say this article more or less indicates the UK govt. intentions, their disconnection from the world at large:

"Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has criticised Muslim leaders for condemning British foreign policy.
An open letter, signed by three Muslim MPs, three peers and 38 community groups, said the stance on the Middle East has put civilians at risk.

They went on to say that UK policy has given "ammunition to extremists".

But Mr Howells denied there was a "rational connection" and said "no government" formulates policy based on a perceived risk from terrorists."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4787119.stm

Condi Rice called the idea that unfair wars where hundreds of thousands are killed in any way should be connected with a higher terror risk 'grotesque', and signals the US government inclination. Howell indicates that the UK govt. don't see a 'rational connection' between Britain's participation in same wars and an escalated risk of terror at home, and goes on to rationalize how dangerous it is to think that way.

This does not bode well for the future.