'Plot To Blow Up Planes' Foiled

[knutisan]

the u.n. should require all airlines to "carry" the image of the danish cartoons, to ensure equality in the targeting of all airlines is equal.

This i do not understand!or maybe you try to be ironic

[fruittbatt]

I live in an area of the UK with a large Muslim population, mostly of Pakistani ethnicity. I know many both socially and professionally, most of them in their late teens/early twenties and most born here in the UK. One of my daughters best friends is the daughter of the Imam of the local mosque.

I can confidently say that 99.9999999% of British Muslims have no sympathy whatsoever with the aims nor methods of these murderers who profess to be fighting for Islam.

The opinion of every Muslim I have discussed this with, including the aforementioned Imam, is that the terrorists are destined not for paradise, but for the darkest reaches of hel_l.

Thank you for the interesting links and for your complex perspective and personal insights into this topic

[udon]

Fruittbatt & knutisan

Take a break please or this topic will get shut down.

thanks.

[Arsenal]

I cant quite get my head around why UK Pakistanis are now rebelling against their own country and joining the madness. I can only surmise that with all the racial abuse that gets hurled at them in the UK, they are getting fed up and fighting back in the only way they know how.

I live in an area of the UK with a large Muslim population, mostly of Pakistani ethnicity. I know many both socially and professionally, most of them in their late teens/early twenties and most born here in the UK. One of my daughters best friends is the daughter of the Imam of the local mosque.

I can confidently say that 99.9999999% of British Muslims have no sympathy whatsoever with the aims nor methods of these murderers who profess to be fighting for Islam.

The opinion of every Muslim I have discussed this with, including the aforementioned Imam, is that the terrorists are destined not for paradise, but for the darkest reaches of hel_l.

I would like to agree with you, and generally my British Muslim friends take the same view as your Muslim friends.However unfortunately all the evidence suggests that in the British Muslim community at large the support for terrorism is much much higher than you suggest.Even the respectable end of the Muslim establishment, while not condoning murder, are much quicker to point the finger at British foreign policy than to accept responsibility for educating their own community.

It's all a bit of a puzzle but reluctantly I accept there are dark days ahead with a probable necessary curtailment of civil liberties.

[mbkudu]

If they'd just pull all the **edited for racist comments***out of the desert, all this terrrorizm would stop.

A very naive view.

Any better suggestion? It would be a start in the right direction. Everything done so far has produced little progress. It would be better if the US and Britain would just come clean and state exactly why they are really there. I know why they are there as a lot of others, but if they made an official statement like: "We have made strategic movements in the Middle Eastern region to secure energy rights for the future prosperity of the Western world and its allies. The past and current spate of reprisals using terrorism on our nations is an affront to our safety and rights of global manifest destiny. We will combat and overtake any petroleum rich nation that poses an economic threat to our global trade in petroleum. Every effort will be made to infiltrate and use propaganda to install favorable leaders who will promulgate and advance our agenda."

If they said something like this instead of all this 'free world and democracy sh!t,' then people might have more respect and would know where they (the West) stand in the world. Most world leaders are not that stupid and see where it's all going. It's refreshing that more than a few world leaders are not following the game plan anymore. Good luck to them because it will be a hard fight.

Edited August 13, 2006 by sbk

[opothai]

Once again our pandering to the USA and what they want is causing us problems.

If we stopped butting into other countries business and left it to the busybody americans we wouldn't be terrorist targets , 9/11 wouldn't have happened and we would all be free to live our lives (except of course under this current labour goverment we aren't free to do anything anyway)

i would like to agree with you but the reality is the west are on a lose lose situation.

when trouble flares around israel the arabs and most of the world are saying and think it is up to the us and the west to sort the situation fast even as hezbulla instigated this out break.

if the west left all the arab nations it would revert back to indiscriminate killing of thier own people and civil war in many countries.

for my part i would like to pull out and leave the idiots to kill and maim each other, but the reality is if that happened there would be a call for the united nations and the us to police the countries and provide target practice for the numbskull insurgents.

then it all starts again

[GU22]

mbkudu,

I am not going to defend US or British foreign policy, as there is much to both that I strongly disagree with.

But saying that withdrawing from Iraq would stop the terrorists is naive, and shows an ignorance of recent history.

Al-Qaeda had it's origins in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan many years ago. Al-Qaeda still exists.

The first Islamic extremist atrocity against the US was in Beirut in 1983, there were many others, including Lockerbie. The first that is widely accepted to have Al-Qaeda support or involvement was a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Centre in New York in Feb 1993. The hijackings and mass slaughter of 9/11 was in 2001. (Source).

All well before a single US or coalition soldier entered Iraq in 2003.

See Al-Qaeda, from Wikipedia for a history of Al-Qaeda.

However, it can be strongly argued that to some extent the US brought this upon themselves, as Al-Qaeda was at one time supported by the CIA!

In July 2005 Robin Cook wrote the following in the Guardian

'Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west

Edited August 13, 2006 by GU22

[kayo]

Passengers required to taste baby milk

LONDON: Passengers with infants were required to taste bottles of baby milk before being allowed on British flights yesterday as security measures were ramped up due to fears of a terror plot.

Apart from baby milk, which has to be tasted, liquids were being removed from passengers.

- The Star

Who gets to milk the women?

[knutisan]

If they'd just pull all the **edited for racist comments***out of the desert, all this terrrorizm would stop.

A very naive view.

Any better suggestion? It would be a start in the right direction. Everything done so far has produced little progress. It would be better if the US and Britain would just come clean and state exactly why they are really there. I know why they are there as a lot of others, but if they made an official statement like: "We have made strategic movements in the Middle Eastern region to secure energy rights for the future prosperity of the Western world and its allies. The past and current spate of reprisals using terrorism on our nations is an affront to our safety and rights of global manifest destiny. We will combat and overtake any petroleum rich nation that poses an economic threat to our global trade in petroleum. Every effort will be made to infiltrate and use propaganda to install favorable leaders who will promulgate and advance our agenda."

If they said something like this instead of all this 'free world and democracy sh!t,' then people might have more respect and would know where they (the West) stand in the world. Most world leaders are not that stupid and see where it's all going. It's refreshing that more than a few world leaders are not following the game plan anymore. Good luck to them because it will be a hard fight.

what and who are behind our soocall;d worldleader,s?maybe the world bank! I only want to make i new topic with this question

[britmaveric]

mbkudu,

I am not going to defend US or British foreign policy, as there is much to both that I strongly disagree with.

But saying that withdrawing from Iraq would stop the terrorists is naive, and shows an ignorance of recent history.

Al-Qaeda had it's origins in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan many years ago. Al-Qaeda still exists.

The first Islamic extremist atrocity against the US was in Beirut in 1983, there were many others, including Lockerbie. The first that is widely accepted to have Al-Qaeda support or involvement was a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Centre in New York in Feb 1993. The hijackings and mass slaughter of 9/11 was in 2001. (Source).

All well before a single US or coalition soldier entered Iraq in 2003.

See Al-Qaeda, from Wikipedia for a history of Al-Qaeda.

However, it can be strongly argued that to some extent the US brought this upon themselves, as Al-Qaeda was at one time supported by the CIA!

In July 2005 Robin Cook wrote the following in the Guardian

'Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west

Appeasement policies never work - just look at WWII and thats a prime example what appeasement leads to.... time to finish it now before it spreads elsewhere.

[knutisan]

mbkudu,

I am not going to defend US or British foreign policy, as there is much to both that I strongly disagree with.

But saying that withdrawing from Iraq would stop the terrorists is naive, and shows an ignorance of recent history.

Al-Qaeda had it's origins in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan many years ago. Al-Qaeda still exists.

The first Islamic extremist atrocity against the US was in Beirut in 1983, there were many others, including Lockerbie. The first that is widely accepted to have Al-Qaeda support or involvement was a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Centre in New York in Feb 1993. The hijackings and mass slaughter of 9/11 was in 2001. (Source).

All well before a single US or coalition soldier entered Iraq in 2003.

See Al-Qaeda, from Wikipedia for a history of Al-Qaeda.

However, it can be strongly argued that to some extent the US brought this upon themselves, as Al-Qaeda was at one time supported by the CIA!

In July 2005 Robin Cook wrote the following in the Guardian

'Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west

Appeasement policies never work - just look at WWII and thats a prime example what appeasement leads to.... time to finish it now before it spreads elsewhere.

appeasement; can you explain that word??

[AmeriThai]

I find it a bit weird as there are no scanners anywhere in the world at airports that can detect liquid explosives.

A couple of the cable news networks said Japan has developed such a detector, it's been around for about a year, but that it's still in the testing phase.

[knutisan]

mbkudu,

I am not going to defend US or British foreign policy, as there is much to both that I strongly disagree with.

But saying that withdrawing from Iraq would stop the terrorists is naive, and shows an ignorance of recent history.

Al-Qaeda had it's origins in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan many years ago. Al-Qaeda still exists.

The first Islamic extremist atrocity against the US was in Beirut in 1983, there were many others, including Lockerbie. The first that is widely accepted to have Al-Qaeda support or involvement was a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Centre in New York in Feb 1993. The hijackings and mass slaughter of 9/11 was in 2001. (Source).

All well before a single US or coalition soldier entered Iraq in 2003.

See Al-Qaeda, from Wikipedia for a history of Al-Qaeda.

However, it can be strongly argued that to some extent the US brought this upon themselves, as Al-Qaeda was at one time supported by the CIA!

In July 2005 Robin Cook wrote the following in the Guardian

'Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west

Appeasement policies never work - just look at WWII and thats a prime example what appeasement leads to.... time to finish it now before it spreads elsewhere.

appeasement; can you explain that word??

www.frontpagemazine.com

[knutisan]

mbkudu,

I am not going to defend US or British foreign policy, as there is much to both that I strongly disagree with.

But saying that withdrawing from Iraq would stop the terrorists is naive, and shows an ignorance of recent history.

Al-Qaeda had it's origins in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan many years ago. Al-Qaeda still exists.

The first Islamic extremist atrocity against the US was in Beirut in 1983, there were many others, including Lockerbie. The first that is widely accepted to have Al-Qaeda support or involvement was a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Centre in New York in Feb 1993. The hijackings and mass slaughter of 9/11 was in 2001. (Source).

All well before a single US or coalition soldier entered Iraq in 2003.

See Al-Qaeda, from Wikipedia for a history of Al-Qaeda.

However, it can be strongly argued that to some extent the US brought this upon themselves, as Al-Qaeda was at one time supported by the CIA!

In July 2005 Robin Cook wrote the following in the Guardian

'Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west

Appeasement policies never work - just look at WWII and thats a prime example what appeasement leads to.... time to finish it now before it spreads elsewhere.

appeasement; can you explain that word??

www.frontpagemazine.com

frontpage.com

[mbkudu]

mbkudu,

I am not going to defend US or British foreign policy, as there is much to both that I strongly disagree with.

But saying that withdrawing from Iraq would stop the terrorists is naive, and shows an ignorance of recent history.

Al-Qaeda had it's origins in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets left Afghanistan many years ago. Al-Qaeda still exists.

The first Islamic extremist atrocity against the US was in Beirut in 1983, there were many others, including Lockerbie. The first that is widely accepted to have Al-Qaeda support or involvement was a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Centre in New York in Feb 1993. The hijackings and mass slaughter of 9/11 was in 2001. (Source).

All well before a single US or coalition soldier entered Iraq in 2003.

See Al-Qaeda, from Wikipedia for a history of Al-Qaeda.

However, it can be strongly argued that to some extent the US brought this upon themselves, as Al-Qaeda was at one time supported by the CIA!

In July 2005 Robin Cook wrote the following in the Guardian

'Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west

Appeasement policies never work - just look at WWII and thats a prime example what appeasement leads to.... time to finish it now before it spreads elsewhere.

Brit, you're a lovely chap and a good man, but I think your undying loyalty and love of Britain and America is clouding your vision of the reality of the situation. This is just it; these people in Washington, Downing Street and Ridyha (Saudi Arabia) want it to spread and want controlled chaos.

What makes you think no appeasement will work? Their goal is continued conflift as far and wide as possible. They even don't mind a little domestic disturbance once in awhile to keep their citizens on their toes. As long a there is always 'a problem' there is a need for them to contain that problem.

'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace' as Gore Vidal puts it. What's a warmonger to do without war?

[marshbags]

BBC NEWS Monday, 14 August 2006, 01:34 GMT 02:34 UK

UK terror threat level downgraded :-

quote from the latest update :-

The terror threat to the UK has been downgraded from critical to severe.

The Home Office said the decision had been made because an attack was "highly likely" but no longer "imminent".

The change in the threat level means the ban on taking hand luggage on to flights from the UK has been lifted, although some restrictions remain.

Meanwhile, a British Airways flight from Heathrow to New York has been turned back because a mobile phone - banned at the time - was on board.

For the full article please go to :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4789169.stm

These no brainers who insist on totally disregarding commonsense are a pain, especially with mobiles.

It would be interesting to see what would happen on Thai flights regarding strict enforcement.

It,s amazing how many cannot even respect basic rules in normal circumstances about non use.

All nationalities are guilty of this by the way.

marshbags

[mbkudu]

I saw a guy on a flight just before take off being told by the air hostess to please turn off his cell phone. He looked at her and shook his head. She came back a minute later and he was still on the phone. She asked him again and the same. Finally, she told him if he didn't turn if off now, he must exit the airplane. He turned it off. Some people can hear just fine, but they refuse to listen.

[phibunmike]

I am flying on Thai Air Asia tomorrow and phoned them to ask about hand baggage, whether I would be ok with my laptop computer, and if there were any other restrictions: the guy I spoke to had absolutely no idea what I was talking about...

[Pakboong]

Some ugly news on this latest mess. Apparently, several of these alleged terrorists did not even have passports. None of them had actually purchased a ticket. Real tough to do the suicide/plane thing without a passport. I guess you could do a domestic flight but you would still need a ticket.

[knutisan]

I am flying on Thai Air Asia tomorrow and phoned them to ask about hand baggage, whether I would be ok with my laptop computer, and if there were any other restrictions: the guy I spoke to had absolutely no idea what I was talking about...

that i have heard before [font=Arial but nice too have somthing to wory about

[opothai]

Some ugly news on this latest mess. Apparently, several of these alleged terrorists did not even have passports. None of them had actually purchased a ticket. Real tough to do the suicide/plane thing without a passport. I guess you could do a domestic flight but you would still need a ticket.

you don't need a ticket or passport to be involved in a conspiricy

looking at the waiting time with the added security issues,

it is being banded about that passenger profiling would ease delays.

i.e a family of four would be less risky than a single man or woman trvelling alone.

personally i think this is perfectly rational, but there are concerens the pc brigade would stick it's nose in.

will common sense prevail ???

Edited August 14, 2006 by opothai

[fruittbatt]

Some ugly news on this latest mess. Apparently, several of these alleged terrorists did not even have passports. None of them had actually purchased a ticket. Real tough to do the suicide/plane thing without a passport. I guess you could do a domestic flight but you would still need a ticket.

very interesting indeed! Could you give us the source, please, Pakbbong?

you don't need a ticket or passport to be involved in a conspiricy

looking at the waiting time with the added security issues,

it is being banded about that passenger profiling would ease delays.

i.e a family of four would be less risky than a single man or woman trvelling alone.

personally i think this is perfectly rational, but there are concerens the pc brigade would stick it's nose in.

will common sense prevail ???

"passenger profiling" is a pc way of saying "stereotyping people according to certain prejudices about what a suicide bomber looks like or how they behave". It was precisely this sort of "common sense" that police used in the London Underground last year when they shot dead an innocent Brazilian who happened to be carrying a backpack.

[Pakboong]

Some ugly news on this latest mess. Apparently, several of these alleged terrorists did not even have passports. None of them had actually purchased a ticket. Real tough to do the suicide/plane thing without a passport. I guess you could do a domestic flight but you would still need a ticket.

very interesting indeed! Could you give us the source, please, Pakbbong?

you don't need a ticket or passport to be involved in a conspiricy

looking at the waiting time with the added security issues,

it is being banded about that passenger profiling would ease delays.

i.e a family of four would be less risky than a single man or woman trvelling alone.

personally i think this is perfectly rational, but there are concerens the pc brigade would stick it's nose in.

will common sense prevail ???

"passenger profiling" is a pc way of saying "stereotyping people according to certain prejudices about what a suicide bomber looks like or how they behave". It was precisely this sort of "common sense" that police used in the London Underground last year when they shot dead an innocent Brazilian who happened to be carrying a backpack.

Source is NBC news

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

[fruittbatt]

Source is NBC news

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

thanks...

[britmaveric]

"passenger profiling" is a pc way of saying "stereotyping people according to certain prejudices about what a suicide bomber looks like or how they behave". It was precisely this sort of "common sense" that police used in the London Underground last year when they shot dead an innocent Brazilian who happened to be carrying a backpack.

If he hadnt been in the country illegally guess it wouldnt have happened now would it???

[fruittbatt]

"passenger profiling" is a pc way of saying "stereotyping people according to certain prejudices about what a suicide bomber looks like or how they behave". It was precisely this sort of "common sense" that police used in the London Underground last year when they shot dead an innocent Brazilian who happened to be carrying a backpack.

If he hadnt been in the country illegally guess it wouldnt have happened now would it???

As far as I know - and I'm no authority - the cops who shot this guy never bothered to check the id or legality of the dead Brazilian's status before killing him....correct me if I'm wrong...

[baboon]

"passenger profiling" is a pc way of saying "stereotyping people according to certain prejudices about what a suicide bomber looks like or how they behave". It was precisely this sort of "common sense" that police used in the London Underground last year when they shot dead an innocent Brazilian who happened to be carrying a backpack.

If he hadnt been in the country illegally guess it wouldnt have happened now would it???

Dont want to barney with you Fruitbatt, legally in Britain or not, on hearing "Armed Police, HALT!," what would you do? Even if you could not speak the language, when official looking men are running at you with guns, it would seem sensible to stop and put your hands up.

[AmeriThai]

Some ugly news on this latest mess. Apparently, several of these alleged terrorists did not even have passports. None of them had actually purchased a ticket. Real tough to do the suicide/plane thing without a passport. I guess you could do a domestic flight but you would still need a ticket.

you don't need a ticket or passport to be involved in a conspiricy

But you DO need a passport to board an international flight. The claims are that the alleged radicals had been told to "Do it now!", that is proceed with the final stage of the plan within a matter of days. Um, if they had no passports, they weren't likely to be going anywhere on any transatlantic flights. They'd first have to apply for and receive passports. I don't know how long that takes in the UK, but can you get one that quickly?

Edited August 15, 2006 by AmeriThai

[baboon]

If you are prepared to pay over the odds, you can go to London and get a Passport in 1 day.[legally.]

[AmeriThai]

If you are prepared to pay over the odds, you can go to London and get a Passport in 1 day.[legally.]

Hmm. Maybe the UK should take a closer look at that.