Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
and so it continues!
it's more lies to scare the shit out of us again
they are not sure that it HAS been thwarted 100%.
and busting of one plot may potentially "encourage" anyone else with similar plans to move theirs along to avoid detection.
the evul DIRKA DIRKA JIHAD terrorists they missed know to reschedule
imagine the embarrassment if a bunch of terrorists turned up at an airport and got caught, really easily. it'd make a mockery of the whole concept of 'terror' if they were that easy to catch.
it's all fucking bullshit. Did anyone see that programme with John Snow on Monday about the Muslim survey? As one interviewee correctly stated, the only way to thwart Islamic terrorism is to stop aggressive foreign policy in Islamic countries. It's really that simple. But no. Apparently the answer is to be even 'tougher' with foreign policy, 'intelligence led' counter terrorism measures and blah blah blah. Politicians are as thick as whale omlettes in bottles of pig shit.
it's really not that simple. i think the current aggression acts as more of an excuse than a clearcut reason.
...is that it may take several years to completely end Islamic terrorism. Even if we were to stop aggrressive foreign policies in Islamic countries, there's too much anti-Western feeling to subside that easily.
However the first thing to do is to try and stop young Muslims from becoming extremists. I do think that a large part of that has to involve ensuring Britain's foreign policy actions are perceived as fair and balanced.
I think the entire response to the War on Terror (including calling it a War on Terror) has been poorly-handled and has given extremist Muslims plenty of material in order to try and sway young people to their cause. Guantanamo, 'collateral damage', the manner in which the invasion of Iraq was handled, Tony Blair and George W Bush's defiance bordering on arrogance whenever anyone suggests there might be another way; all of these have made matters worse.
There's absolutely nothing we can do to stop terrorism over night but I think we're now in a situation where we can either create a situation where in 10 years time the radicalisation of young Muslims has largely ceased or we can lay the roots for what could be a much longer-lasting problem.
i agree with alot of what you say .... but the biggest thing we could have done, in concert with US naturally, would have been to take our resonsibilities to post-war Iraq seriously and built a functioning state rather than using it as a battlefield in which to take on foreign fighters. Iraq should have been as much a task for USAID, the NED and the Department of State as it was for the military.
to criticise the manner of the invasion is , i think, pretty wrongheaded. it is what has happenned since.
9/11 happened well before the US' foreign policy on terrorism even started.
They use it as an excuse. They probably couldn't give a fuck about the people in Lebannon or Iraq. They're out to get what they can for themselves.
The problems in the Middle East go back to British & US foreign policy in the early part of the 20th century and before.
During the 1990s Al Quaeda tried a number of attacks and the US retaliated a number of times.
Tensions between, say, Iran and the US had been going on for many years.
To see the War on Terror as the start of US foreign policy in the middle east would be historically inaccurate.
there is no terrorist threat from latin america ... why is that??
the hangover from the first gulf war meant that american troops were stationed in saudia arabia and kuwait.
as well as this, british and american planes enforced a no-fly-zone over a large portion of iraq and were almost constantly engaged in bombing attacks against iraqi forces on the ground.
theguywithnousername has said above.
the involvement of british / american / european interests in the middle east goes back to the end of world war I, and our attitude has usually been to disregard anything the locals wanted.
investigate the 1998 (?) bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Keyna, the attempted bombing of the WTC towers in 1991-ish, american intervention in somalia, etc etc.
there's a lot of history there.
basically, you're wrong.
but here are clearly double standards at work here. so many people cited the presence of US troops in Mecca and Medina as a cause of 9/11 ... but the only reason there were US troops there was to protect SA from Iraq. America now has now troops in Saudi Arabia because it has shifted its regional military presence to Iraq. And now that is cited for the continuation of anti-Western terrorism.
I just think it's complete bullshit to see stuff like this as resistance to the West rather than a political project in its own right.
my parents coming back from holiday in greece tomorrow, bet they're gonna have a completely shite time doing it.
going to fit my pyjamas, make up, magazines, ipod, ribena, paperwork, mobile, washbag etc in to a little clear bag when I fly to HK on Saturday?! Urrrgh, this'll add an extra burst of adrenaline to take off..
putting it all in a proper bag in the hold?
It's a 12 hour flight! I might just have a sleeping tablet instead and knock myself out for the duration..
pyjamas - to sleep in I can only assume
ribena - er, to drink
washbag - brushing teeth, etc
the others are excuseable though, granted
or just something comfortable. use the toiletries they provide you with. listen to the inflight entertainment. remember that you cant use your mobile on planes anyway.
also: saturday is two days away
unless it's prescription
'cause, y'know, it could be a BOMB
I'll make a bomb tee.
I'm mega jealous of you going to HK - I went in March as my brother lives there. Loved it.
this trip tho coz it's less than a week and I have to do lots of work. Am going for two weeks in October which will be Ace as I'll have a couple of days off for wondering about.
I saw you the other day, we crossed in the street, are you the tall one or the slightly less tall one?!
but October should be fun! I've heard it's very pretty in the Autumn too...
Hehe, I was the taller one. Looks like we're going to be taking it! :D yay.
I can't believe what they've said there. It's like they're not even going to let you bring a book in. Oooh paper cuts. Dangerous. How about you suffocate people with the placcy bag, then?
I'm confused by is the ban on hand luggage. I thought they could see what was in our bags when we put them on that conveyor belt and it goes through that scanner that wipes your photographic films and then they open it all up anyway and unpack everything and then leave it for you to repack.
bombs you can assemble from other bits, like MacGyver or the A-Team, fool!
Well that's how it reads to me. The plastic bags are there to make sure everything you have is in plain view presumably but they don't want you to have anything at all.
thought of mothers having to taste their own chilled breast milk has been making me chuckle all morning.
They can't be enforcing this too rigorously. The last time I was on a plane I took with me a gig-bag full of shit including a screwdriver, wire clippers, several lengths of guitar string of varying guages and a carton of semtex.
Amazingly it got on as hand luggage.
"Only the barest essentials - including passports and wallets - will be allowed to be carried on board in transparent plastic bags."
No ribena or washbag for you, it seems..
maybe they'll have good films..
"A plot to blow up planes in flight from the UK to the US and commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.
It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled in hand luggage on to as many as 10 aircraft. "
I can imagine 10 planes full of people quite easily, Ithangyewverymuch
they're getting better at actually stopping plots from coming to fruition.
We're much better off than in the old days, when stuff blew up every other week.
I'm not scared though. If a plane tried to fly itself into my face, I'd tell it to BACK OFF.
coz that'll keep 'em at bay wont it!
When we thwart their crappy plans. They must be absolutely well pissed off. Our Police are the most useless pieces of turd in the world, so these filthy rats must be acting really complacent about things.
it's just an excuse to scare as usual.
Me? Cynical? Never.
Are you saying its one of these 'staged' things...?
Jack old biscuit...:)
or simply wrong. Let's wait and see how many of these people they're holding end up being totally innocent...
you only have to pick up a newspaper to see how much bullshit is passed off as 'news'.
There'd be such a risk of whistle-blowing I think it'd take fairly dramatic circumstances to even attempt it.
I've never been convinced my mass government conspiracy theories. Working for the NHS (which is essentially a government organisation) I find that you actually have this large institution where no-one's really sure what anyone else is doing.
I can see how people can be misled, misguided, misdirected and refuse to listen and take dubious courses of action due to the inflexibility of the system. But I honestly doubt any government organisation is co-ordinated or organised enough to pull off a deliberate mass conspiracy of this nature.
all you need is senior officials to agree on a strategy. The rest will do as they're told. Just like in a company, you just need 1 person at the top and the remaining yes men will follow suit.
It's not preposterous to suggest it, just work for a large multi-national corporation for a couple of years and you soon see how the world works.
Wonder what they talk about at G8 summits then? Alternative energy? terrorism? public safety? no, the G8 exist to ensure that the rich remain rich.
The stories coming out from the BBC are so vague that anyone could've made it up
Multi-national corporations are hugely different to governemnts and work along very different lines.
well, they're both hierachies. the significant thing is that companies have competitors. government departments are monopolies which explains away their inefficiency but it isn't feesible to get enough people on board to fake a terrorist attack
"the G8 exist to ensure that the rich remain rich."
what a stupid thing to say. what do the russians talk about then? does this not offend canadian social-democratic sensibilities?
any evidence for that? no. i thought not.
did anyone actually know we were having these 'levels'?
s'a bit american, innit?
which, y'know, promptly crashed as soon as peope started looking at it.
Americans have a colour coded system. Gets you to the meat of the issue.
Currently America is at CODE FUCKIN' RED for flights coming to the UK. Which I think is pretty awesome - we're playing with the big boys now.
It's been at Code "Meh" Yellow since then. Several times it's been raised to Code "Uh-Oh" Orange. Amazingly only today was it raised to red.
Some people think that they only raise threat levels when they want attention distracted from other, more pertinent issues that are preoccupying the public.
Like the whole Israel/Lebanon thing.
I, of course, hold no truck with such ludicrious... yet plausible... conspiracy theories. :)
if you watch Fox News they always have the terror alert level scrolling across the bottom. for a while, i was confused when it said 'elevated' ... thinking that that meant it was slightly higher than it had been. ah well,
I don't know, and, of course, the government and police cannot release details of why they think it is true because, if it is, they would want to keep details secret for security reasons.
Look over here! Bombs! Terrorists! Planes! Israel? Wut is Israel?
but I genuinely think that, with the amount of bureaucracy involved in government work, a staged terror alert of this nature would be a difficult and risky thing to pull off with a high chance of being caught out.
I don't know if the situation in Lebanon is yet serious enough (in terms of impact on politicians' political futures) for people to have taken that risk.
I think the level of bureaucracy helps them hide the truth, as it does in large companies.
Politicians are renowned for being able to wriggle out of sticky situations, I don't think that this will be any different.
if they get caught, but they won't because the news corps are under the control of governments, especially the BBC
news corps are under the control of governments? try telling that to te people who would argue that Rupert Murdoch is the UK's most powerful man
It's just the same as the tanks at Heathrow, the dodgy shooting of innocent people in London - no one would accept any blame even if it did come out that someone was lying. All the government does IS lie. We'd have another inquiry which lasts 2 years and finds everyone acted properly.
This is my point (and I'm putting it badly) is that governments institutions in my experience are an absolute mess where everything goes wrong but no-one is individually to blame 'cos it's completely blurred as to who is responsibel for what.
It's entirely possible that the situation at Heathrow is not as it is being made out to be. But I suspect, if so incompetence and lack of accountability are far more likely than deliberate deception.
war on damaged hair and split ends? It was all over the telly about 2 or 3 years back
Believes a word being said.
has it occured to you that some people actually DID attack London? why are you so insistent that all other threats are obviously false?
i'm well aware that the troops were there at the request of the saudi royal family.
i was just contradicting wrightylew's assertations up there.
well, quite. wrightlew is simplifying horribly.
but whenever this is discussed, i get the impression that people will only give america the benefit of the doubt if it entirely withdraws from all political engagement and military action in the muslim world entirely. and i think the consequences of that could be pretty horrific.
if you think that people in this country are any better, i suggest you listen to Talk Sport :)
or jeremy vine on radio 2 or victoria derbyshire on radio 5.
we're almost as fucked over here, i recko
Their news channels are more exciting tho.
that's what makes it a fucking DEBATE, you moron.
oh for fuck's sake, if you have no basis for claiming this whole thing is a charade to keep us 'frightened' then why say it? anyway, if you read the whole tread people don't seem to be debating the technical details of the situation but its political context. i think it makes sense to argue on the basis of what you know, not ludicrous utterly baseless speculation. But then, you'll probably deny my existence now ...
I suspect there's a common perception in the Middle East (and indeed elsewhere) that the US favours Israel, Saudi Arabia and counties that show their most in line with American values and this leads to anger and resentment.
A fundamental problem of course is that the US sells weapons to Israel which does call into question it's objectivity when dealing with the current Lebanon crisis.
i used to hear people say that September 11th was the inevitable result of the sanctions regime in iraq. Now that there are no sanctions in place, as a result of regime change, i hear the same people claim (not you, personally) that the war justifies anti-US and anti-Western terrorism. is this not a contradiction?
i just don't think the US approach to the region can be packaged up so neatly. If it's all about business interests, then there's no point in allying yourself with Israel. If it's all about values, they wouldn't ally themselves with Saudi Arabia.
what I mean is the way in which Bush and Blair dealt with the UN. Rather than saying "we think we should invade Iraq. How do you feel about that?". They essentially said "we're going to invade Iraq and you have to support us" which I think created a lot of the ill-feeling.
I was very much against the war in Iraq and I probably wouldn't have personally supported it anyway but the gung-ho approach to building support to it did make me far angrier about than I might have been, and I imagine others too (especially in the Middle East). Furthermore I'd question whether one could realistically 'liberate' a country from outside without the consent of the people living there and not expect resistance and I am a bit concerned about how there was a complete failure to anticipate what I think was a fairly predictabel level of resistance in Iraq.
That said, you are right and the post-war handling has been much of the problem. But essentially I think it is difficult to liberate a country from outside without it looking like an invasion.
i think there are a few things i want to say here. i sould say from outset that i was a reluctant opponent of the war because i didn't trust the US administration to not cut and run within a few years.
1) at the UN, France said they would oppose the war no matter what concessions were made by the US. you ought to consider the vested interests of this wars opposing governments ... the primary oil interests in the region, for example, were Lukoil (Russian) and TotalFinaElf (French) ... France was also the primary supplier of weapons to Iraq under Hussein.You can dismiss this but don't pretend that Dominique de Villepin shares any of your concerns.
2) you say you can't liberate a country without its consent ... what evidence have you that there was no consent from Iraqi civilians? Johann Hari supported the war entirely on the basis that there was majority support for regime change.
3) i also, personally, think its wrong to characterise the violence in iraq as resistance. if you think it is, then you'll have to explain the bombings of Shia mosques by Sunni insurgents. Or the murder of Sergio Viera. or the killing of contractors. Better to characterise it as a counterevolutionary fascist junta, i think.
but no, the regime change created a vacuum of power which the Americans either couldn't fill or weren't willing to commit the necessary resources to do so. And it's an absolute tragedy.
Obviously there was guerilla action there in the 1960s and 70s and there are plenty of terrorists in South America but they don't fight the US per se.
It's not something I know too much about but, from the little I do know, I suspect the reason may be because the guerillas in Latin America are fighting factions within their own countries.
comes down to drugs, oil and big business, as best i can tell..
latin america has had its internal politics fucked about with far more than the middle east has. why aren't chileans attacking America over the murde of Allende?
and I certainly don't think the US is some evil monster intentionaly hellbent on world domination.
But for various reasons the US has angered a lot of people in the Middle East. Obviously that justifies nothing and there is never an excuse for extremism or terrorism.
Ultimately the US has to try to deal with that anti-US feeling rather than pretend it doesn't exist, and I do think that the US policy in the middle east doesn't help. The fundamental problem is that the US wants to pursue its own interests globally and wants to put its interests before everyone else's. In many ways this is only natural and logical within the context of the US political and ideological system.
But it does create a lot of ill-feeling with people who feel that the US or US corporations are interfering with their country's politics and ignoring local feeling to further US interests.
but national interests can sometimes coincide with the general interest, can't it? the obvious analogy would be america fighting the nazis.
I don't believe there's any kind of conspiracy or evil plan within the G8 to keep everybody rich - to me it's ridiculous to beleive that people get together and sit in a room to discuss how to oppress the poor.
What the G8 does exist to do is to further the business and political interests of the countries involved. Unfortunately a by-product of furthering these interests is that other country's interests may be set back. To give an extreme example it is not in the US's best interests as one of the richest country's in the world to resdistribute the world's wealth equally, although others might benefit.
I'm making my point badly but basically I feel that people who believe in deliberate conspiracy theories are often wrong and mistaken as to how these things work. That's not to say that they don't have a point in terms of the consequences of the G8's actions but to suggest this is a deliberate plan (or indeed to suggest that today's alert is a deliberate plan to keep us frightened) is probably not quite on the mark.
I don't think the people who 'run the world' are evil, just caught up in a system and a way of thinking that produces consequences that they are not able to acknowledge or resolve.
and of course, countries can reduce poverty themselves. it's not as if the American President says "i think i'll have Equatorial Guinea as my emerging market this year" .... why is China increasingly wealthy but Mongolia is not? Why is India so much wealthier than Pakistan?
the governments of poor countries must also be apportioned some of the blame.
rabidly pro-government, police and Israel Jacob?
some people are seriously delusional on here.
What happened in Big Brother last night? Anything good?
i think big brother is just a plot to distract us from the fact that we haven't met our kyoto targets. damn fucking government
i'm not. pay more attention
And the US obviously doees do good in the world.
But somtimes national interests are not the same as what it's in the best interest of the wider world.
yeah, but my point is that america is hated in the middle east no matter what it does
is that the majority of those working in governemnts, even at the very top, are essentially people who want to earn a salary, achieve as much as they can and retire to a life of comfort.
To actually stage a terrorist threat you'd need a large number of people to agree to it. And most (even at the very top) wouldn't - or woulnd't even suggest it) because
a) they're not evil supervillains
b) if not enough people agree they might get reported and sacked.
but obviously it started somewhere. Think about it rationally - the US is a long, long way from the Middle East. It'd be a bit strange if people suddenly started hating the Americans for no reason.
I think now there is little the US can do that it won't get criticised for but I think this is a situation it has created itself after years of staging coups and counter-coups to get pro-American leaders in charge of other countries (regardless of who the citizens want in charge).
But you're assuming that the reaction of the average person in the Midle East is a logical well-thought out response. You would not give such credit to an illiterate American.
Personally, I believe it makes sense to think about this as if there were a market for hatred. Think of terrorism as the product of a market for hatred.
Such a market requires people who have an incentive to supply hatred â€“ that is, politicians who see it as a way of winning support. It requires â€œhate storiesâ€? to be minimally plausible â€“ that there be a demand for them. This requires people to believe that the object of hate is attacking them; for that object to be segregated from them (so they learn about it from politicians rather than personal experience); and for people to have little incentive or ability to learn the truth. It also helps if suppliers of hatred offer services to its potential customers. These could take the form of a â€œmeaning of lifeâ€?, some career, or social services (Hamas and Hezbollah, for example).
this isn't an original idea, mind. but i think it's a plausible one.
But It doesn't actually need everyone to give a logical well-thought out response. As long as a few opinion-formers do there'll always be people who go along with the crowd.
I understand what you're saying but I stick to my point. However I would add that there is probably also an element of people wanting to find someone or something they can blame for all their problems as it's easier than accepting the world is a complex place. I do accept that one factor in the dislike of America in the Middle East is that they're the easiest people to blame.
what i've just said doesn't necessarily clash with your views. american behaviour does make hate creating stories more plausible, after all.
He does take a different view to many on the board but his arguments tend to be rational and thought-through and I don't think they're as simple as pro-Israel, pro-police and pro-government.
I don't always agree with him but it would be dull to have these discussions if everyone took the precise same stand point.
I just wondered if he was a government mole sent to spread Home Office propaganda.
was that a deliberate self parody? cheers, anyway.
for the record, i'm not pro-police at all i just took the pro-police line over stockwell until more information came out and i realised i was wrong.
as for pro-government, i have very mixed feelings about the current government. some good stuff and some bad stuff. perhaps a discussion for another time.
and i've always tended to be pro-israel, or at least less anti-israel than most people on the left, but i'm pretty disguested by what they're doing now.
i think that's fair enough
There's nothing I like to see more than the Police cracking heads and doing their job well - I have no problem with front-line police officers, it's the arse-covering in the higher ranks that gets me down.
I'm certainly not some crusty that throws abuse at any policeman that drives by - you may as well go around punching nurses.
whenever i hear some fucking halfwit say something like 'nah its all a deliberate plot just to scare us'.
I sometimes get the impression half of our country could be wiped out and you would still have some ps2 playing, dope smoking clown saying 'dont you know, its the goverment,they just bomb they shit out of our country to make us scared'
i am at the end of my tether with this bullshit and i think a lot of other people are too
a plot to scare us
and kill 2000 or so people as well
that by killing 2000 people, that would probably scare us
the government pretending there was a plot to kill 200o people, come off it
And Iraq had WMD, that Brazilian dude was a terrorist and Sky News is fair and balanced. Why would a government lie?
Lets see how many people are convicted of anything that came to light today.
The government had nothing to do with what happened to that Brazillian dude, and even less to do with how Sky News conducts itself - even though there's nothing wrong with Sky News that isn't also wrong with BBC news.
are the government responsible for what happened to that brazillian bloke? jesus christ are you that deluded
i'm sure he'll turn round the shabby service Sky call news.
And i'm sure the Home Office had no hand in clearing the police officers AND more impotantly their superiors.
But aside from that, I was just listing a few half-truths.
on the london bombings then??? i plan by blair and his boys to shit us up??
Do you think Sky News is shabby because of Sky's links with Rupert "Anti-Christ" Murdoch, or because you actually think the quality of news offered by the network is shabby... despite the reputable quality of the production and presenting team and the host of awards it's gathered over the years?
i have read that link before and i just dont buy it. can you explain to me in detail what the government would get out of sacrificing lives and staging bombings as well as hoax bombings. what would they actually achieve by scaring the british public. being its this government that constantly gets critisized for having too many immigrants in the country...why would they plan on bombing places knowing immigrants would get the blame??
i may be being naive here, but can you tell me
I'm not saying I believed it (hence the smilie). To be honest, I think thats a load of old horsepoop. I quite agree with you that it's unlikely our government would bomb it's own people (unlike certain others).
However, that doesn't mean I can swallow point blank everything a minister tells me just because of his job title - mps have been known to lie in the past and i'm sure they will again. I find it just a little convenient that in a week when John Reid has again spelled out that we must 'lose some civil liberties' to protect our country, we find ourselves with a heightened security level and blanket speculative news coverage.
Panic on the streets of London?
a politician tells me to be honest with you. these people are the biggest liars that were ever born to this earth....but that link you posted is how a lot of people actually think. I just cant get it through my thick skull what the government would achieve making half of the country come to a standstill today...and have everyone being shit scared of visiting the country...and being shit scared of muslim people, who they constantly get critisised for letting come into the country
getting Israel off the front pages for a day or two and a renewed attempt to push ID Cards through (even though those 'arrested' were British citizens) would almost make it worthwhile - it's not like the government will take any flak for the disturbances today, thats out of their hands of course. Plus Cliff Richards house is fair distance from Gatwick.
I don't honestly believe they have Muslims interests at heart to be honest, but only in the same way I don't think they really care about nurses, teachers or anyone else. All i'm saying is that today had shades of when the tanks pulled up outside Heathrow for no discernable reason - just as a reminder that the War on Terror should still be the govt's number one priority over the Health Service, Welfare, etc etc.
a lot of what is reported is hyperbole by the press, the police and government ministers. How many times has the truth been stretched, exagerated or misrepresented in the past? WMD capable of being deployed in 45 minutes? The recent raid on the 2 Muslim brothers where one got shot and it turned up nothing? The shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes? I don't blame people from being cynical about this latest foiled plot to blow up innocent holiday makers. MPs & Coppers all day have been talking up how they've thwarted 'murder on an unprecendented scale'. I've heard the word 'unprecedented' today more than I ever have! A lot of it is talked up in the media to help fuel the climate of fear that this government seeks to control society with.
As for what has happened today, who knows what the truth is really. We shall wait and see what happens, whether there will be any convictions, what evidence has been discovered. I would be willing to wager that what has been uncovered is not nearly as much of a threat as it has been made out to be. As problems in society go, it is the tip of the iceberg. As was said up there^^^ (post my initial rant), curtailing aggresive foreign policy would help the longer term problem of radicalising young muslims, yet government doesn't realise this.
As with America and Israel, there are more Jews living in America than Israel, and Bush relies on those votes so it figures that America will back Israel in whatever they do re Hezbollah.
the jewish population of the US is still quite small and they're not traditionally republican.
more a fine example of george galloway, frankly
the jewish population also tends to be concentrated in traditionally democrat states.
Florida being the exception.
Bush does not 'depend' on the jewish vote
if only lebanon had the oranges ...
... you're a retard
(well, watch and take seriously. god I hate that channel)
I'm sure it's purely a coincidence that this happened a day or two after Reidy's speech that we're all doomed and we need cameras inserted into our foreheads.
Channel 4 news said that the information had been in the government's hands for at least a week -so Reid knew exactly what he was saying in his speech, and subsequent "some people don't get it" reference. Absolutely disgusting.
what is channel 4's source? i mean, reid is in an absurd position because he it's impossible to guarantee perfect security but he couldn't possibly admit to that