Thread Options 
|
#596207 - 08/10/06 09:43 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
I already tried this, anon. Oh well!
Suzy
Aren't you the same little girl who wrote: "why are the conservatives breaking their arms patting themselves on the back?"
Anon, I agree, it shouldn't have been made political. Unfortunately, when some of us argued that the rabid left was silly to peddle their conspiracy theories about this, it devolved into that. Smilin' Sunshine should have been able to be thankful that the plot was disrupted without us all having to hear about how it was an evil Rovian scheme.
Yes, I'm the same "little girl" that said the conservatives were breaking their arms trying to pat themselves on the back after you said it was the Liberals who were doing all the fussing. Both sides are being disingenuous in this thread. This is not a victory for conservatism nor is it a defeat for liberalism. It's a triumph for the combined US/UK security forces. To make it anything else is to politicize it.
Suzy
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596208 - 08/10/06 09:44 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
It was not just the Liberals fussing; it was both parties. To state that is was just one is not true.
Suzy
I'm the anon that said we should all be happy as a nation today. Suzy, you are back to pointing fingers...using the "she started it" tactic. I never once said it was just the lefties or the righties. I just can't believe that professionals (and maybe that word should be used lightly here) can sit here on a triumphant day like this and still find ways to attack each other...making this into a political controversy.
People, count your blessings. None of your family members, co-workers, or fellow countrymen were blown up today while flying on an airplane. That's what it boils down to.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596209 - 08/10/06 09:44 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
By the way, where is my friggin' tuna?!
Suzy
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596210 - 08/10/06 09:47 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
It was not just the Liberals fussing; it was both parties. To state that is was just one is not true.
Suzy
I'm the anon that said we should all be happy as a nation today. Suzy, you are back to pointing fingers...using the "she started it" tactic. I never once said it was just the lefties or the righties. I just can't believe that professionals (and maybe that word should be used lightly here) can sit here on a triumphant day like this and still find ways to attack each other...making this into a political controversy.
People, count your blessings. None of your family members, co-workers, or fellow countrymen were blown up today while flying on an airplane. That's what it boils down to.
I beg your pardon, anon. I was resonding to the other anon that said I was being political when I said the conservatives were also being testy.
I've said this three times now that I don't think it should be political. I retract the conservatives patting themselves on the back comment. I want us to be happy that there was not a tragedy today.
Suzy
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596211 - 08/10/06 10:34 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
I've said this three times now that I don't think it should be political. I retract the conservatives patting themselves on the back comment. I want us to be happy that there was not a tragedy today.
Suzy, I agree with you that it shouldn't be political. That was the very thing I was criticizing from the outset. Since you're taking back the "patting themselves on the back comment," I take back my criticism of that, and my implication that you can't tell chicken salad from chicken sh*t. If you'd like a tuna sandwich, it's on me, if you're ever in my hometown.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596212 - 08/10/06 11:31 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Someone who isn't given to accept correction made a post that included an exaggerated figure. Fine - correct him. But I'm not sure that it's appropriate to joke about targets or numbers of victims. It is attempted mass murder we're talking about, let's keep that in mind.
Suggesting that BF "isn't given to accept correction" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it? In my opinion, humor is the most appropriate response to his bile.
If indeed they didn't have any plan to destroy any more public centers, goody. Even if they planned to get everyone off the plane before destroying them, do you people STILL think it would have caused fewer delays than actually catching them.
Bile? I think not. Perhaps I exaggerated the numbers, I've admitted to that. I did not realize that we were absolutely positively certain that there were no civilian targets involved in any of these 20 planes they were going to take either. However, I find it odd that some of you who claim our intelligence wasn't good enough to justify going into Iraq to shut down WMD production that wasn't there are now standing by the opinions of our intelligence services who said there were no civilian targets in mind. Interesting dichotomy.
Well, if the intelligence services are able to prove that the plan involved blowing up civilian targets, or if civilian targets are actually blown up as part of this plot, then you would have a dichotomy, as the intelligence services would be wrong again, as they have since proven to be wrong regarding Iraq and WMD.
But. many, including myself, believed the intelligence services at the time about Iraq. Do you think if someone makes an error, they are always wrong about everything?
This belief might explain why you refuse to admit your own mistakes.
Straw, where do you see me saying that they didn't make a mistake or are always wrong about everything? What I'm saying is that I find it interesting that some of the same people who argued that our intelligence stunk at one of the most important moments possible, are now making the assumption that it is correct this time.
As far as admitting to my own mistakes, perhaps you should learn to read. I have often admitted to my mistakes, including in this very thread.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596213 - 08/11/06 02:59 AM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Why does this have to turn political at all?
In addition to the fact, noted by others, that this is undiluted good news, it's ridiculous for either liberals or conservatives in the United States to be trying to make something political over actions taken by Great Britain and Pakistan!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596214 - 08/11/06 03:13 AM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I already tried this, anon. Oh well!
Suzy
Aren't you the same little girl who wrote: "why are the conservatives breaking their arms patting themselves on the back?"
Anon, I agree, it shouldn't have been made political. Unfortunately, when some of us argued that the rabid left was silly to peddle their conspiracy theories about this, it devolved into that. Smilin' Sunshine should have been able to be thankful that the plot was disrupted without us all having to hear about how it was an evil Rovian scheme.
Yes, I'm the same "little girl" that said the conservatives were breaking their arms trying to pat themselves on the back after you said it was the Liberals who were doing all the fussing. Both sides are being disingenuous in this thread. This is not a victory for conservatism nor is it a defeat for liberalism. It's a triumph for the combined US/UK security forces. To make it anything else is to politicize it.
Suzy
This is likely in some part a triumph of the administration that is in power. Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, or Blue, the administration that is in power should get the benefit of celebrating this and enjoying the success--and, yes, even taking credit where (and if) credit is due. I do not consider that politicizing it--like I said, I would expect it regardless of who is in power. If they held it up as a success of one political party over another, that would be wrong, but since they surely get the blame for failed attempts to thwart terrorism, they should get to take some of the credit for the successes.
Most importantly, we need to triumph and congratulate those who work tirelessly, behind the scenes, in breaking up these terror plots.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596215 - 08/11/06 12:07 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,854
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
the administration that is in power should get the benefit of celebrating this and enjoying the success
I still don't understand why the any US administration should get any benefit from this. We palyed no role in this, it was Britian's security forces that uncovered the plot, did the legwork, watched these guys for several months, and made the arrests. I have yet to see anything in the media that said we had any part in it, other than Tony Blair notifying George Bush of the arrests after the fact.
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596216 - 08/11/06 12:28 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Someone who isn't given to accept correction made a post that included an exaggerated figure. Fine - correct him. But I'm not sure that it's appropriate to joke about targets or numbers of victims. It is attempted mass murder we're talking about, let's keep that in mind.
Suggesting that BF "isn't given to accept correction" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it? In my opinion, humor is the most appropriate response to his bile.
If indeed they didn't have any plan to destroy any more public centers, goody. Even if they planned to get everyone off the plane before destroying them, do you people STILL think it would have caused fewer delays than actually catching them.
Bile? I think not. Perhaps I exaggerated the numbers, I've admitted to that. I did not realize that we were absolutely positively certain that there were no civilian targets involved in any of these 20 planes they were going to take either. However, I find it odd that some of you who claim our intelligence wasn't good enough to justify going into Iraq to shut down WMD production that wasn't there are now standing by the opinions of our intelligence services who said there were no civilian targets in mind. Interesting dichotomy.
Well, if the intelligence services are able to prove that the plan involved blowing up civilian targets, or if civilian targets are actually blown up as part of this plot, then you would have a dichotomy, as the intelligence services would be wrong again, as they have since proven to be wrong regarding Iraq and WMD.
But. many, including myself, believed the intelligence services at the time about Iraq. Do you think if someone makes an error, they are always wrong about everything?
This belief might explain why you refuse to admit your own mistakes.
Straw, where do you see me saying that they didn't make a mistake or are always wrong about everything? What I'm saying is that I find it interesting that some of the same people who argued that our intelligence stunk at one of the most important moments possible, are now making the assumption that it is correct this time.
As far as admitting to my own mistakes, perhaps you should learn to read. I have often admitted to my mistakes, including in this very thread.
Saying the numbers may be exaggerated and then giving examples to show your numbers were possible is not admitting a mistake. It's trying to justify the original numbers. If I call you a "son of a gun" and then apologize for it, but outine all the reasons why you really ARE a "son of a gun," have I really done apologized?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596217 - 08/11/06 01:18 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Someone who isn't given to accept correction made a post that included an exaggerated figure. Fine - correct him. But I'm not sure that it's appropriate to joke about targets or numbers of victims. It is attempted mass murder we're talking about, let's keep that in mind.
Suggesting that BF "isn't given to accept correction" is a bit of an understatement, isn't it? In my opinion, humor is the most appropriate response to his bile.
If indeed they didn't have any plan to destroy any more public centers, goody. Even if they planned to get everyone off the plane before destroying them, do you people STILL think it would have caused fewer delays than actually catching them.
Bile? I think not. Perhaps I exaggerated the numbers, I've admitted to that. I did not realize that we were absolutely positively certain that there were no civilian targets involved in any of these 20 planes they were going to take either. However, I find it odd that some of you who claim our intelligence wasn't good enough to justify going into Iraq to shut down WMD production that wasn't there are now standing by the opinions of our intelligence services who said there were no civilian targets in mind. Interesting dichotomy.
Well, if the intelligence services are able to prove that the plan involved blowing up civilian targets, or if civilian targets are actually blown up as part of this plot, then you would have a dichotomy, as the intelligence services would be wrong again, as they have since proven to be wrong regarding Iraq and WMD.
But. many, including myself, believed the intelligence services at the time about Iraq. Do you think if someone makes an error, they are always wrong about everything?
This belief might explain why you refuse to admit your own mistakes.
Straw, where do you see me saying that they didn't make a mistake or are always wrong about everything? What I'm saying is that I find it interesting that some of the same people who argued that our intelligence stunk at one of the most important moments possible, are now making the assumption that it is correct this time.
As far as admitting to my own mistakes, perhaps you should learn to read. I have often admitted to my mistakes, including in this very thread.
Saying the numbers may be exaggerated and then giving examples to show your numbers were possible is not admitting a mistake. It's trying to justify the original numbers. If I call you a "son of a gun" and then apologize for it, but outine all the reasons why you really ARE a "son of a gun," have I really done apologized?
Ahhh, I see, another reading challenged BOL anon. Welcome aboard. If you'll read, I flat out admitted that millions was too high, that hundreds of thousands were possible, even likely. Then when it was pointed out that the suspected targets were not public centers, but merely the planes, I asked if that changed anything about how much slower getting through airports would be if 20 planes were hijacked at once.
I did say that I found it interesting that the same people lambasting Bush for having bad intelligence on WMDs are now accepting the intelligence on the targets as gospel. Why? Because that dichotomy of thought does not make sense.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596218 - 08/11/06 01:27 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,854
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Quote:
I did say that I found it interesting that the same people lambasting Bush for having bad intelligence on WMDs are now accepting the intelligence on the targets as gospel
Still don't uinderstand why you use this analogy, as the US did nothing in this specific incident; our intelligence services were not involved.
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596220 - 08/11/06 02:16 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
the US did nothing in this specific incident; our intelligence services were not involved.
Not exactly. The Brits may have been in the lead, but, according to Time:
Quote:
MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.
Gee, I hope they had a warrant! Gotta be sure we don't violate these fellows' civil rights!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596221 - 08/11/06 02:22 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
the US did nothing in this specific incident; our intelligence services were not involved.
Not exactly. The Brits may have been in the lead, but, according to Time:
Quote:
MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.
Gee, I hope they had a warrant! Gotta be sure we don't violate these fellows' civil rights!
easy pal. i have no doubt the US did not aid in this. but let's not start building strawmen to support the wiretap program. it's pretty simple: if they don't use wiretaps for "domestic" law enforcement, there is no problem. if they "hey sgt o'houlahan, this is black from nsa. you should keep an eye on john smith  " then there is an issue.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596222 - 08/11/06 02:23 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
* the US DID aid in this.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596223 - 08/11/06 02:23 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
the US did nothing in this specific incident; our intelligence services were not involved.
Not exactly. The Brits may have been in the lead, but, according to Time:
Quote:
MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.
Gee, I hope they had a warrant! Gotta be sure we don't violate these fellows' civil rights!
Let's not forget that the intelligence regarding the WMDs was also a joint US/British intelligence effort....
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596224 - 08/11/06 02:32 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
easy pal. i have no doubt the US did not aid in this. but let's not start building strawmen to support the wiretap program.
It's not a strawman. This is exactly the type of thing the NSA program was designed to detect. The question is whether we could have listened into these terrorists had they been in the US, instead of the UK. For some on the left, that would have been a problem. If I recall, a particular Senator who is positioning himself for a run through the Democratic primaries wanted to censure the President over this.
Quote:
it's pretty simple: if they don't use wiretaps for "domestic" law enforcement, there is no problem. if they "hey sgt o'houlahan, this is black from nsa. you should keep an eye on john smith " then there is an issue.
Speaking of strawmen... Fine, Ron, you can prattle on about this for the umpteenth time if you like. Of course, there is zero evidence that the program is being abused, though, of course, the intelligence agencies have been so reluctant to leak information damaging to the Bush Administration...
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596225 - 08/11/06 02:41 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Power Poster
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,994
|
I was watching the news last night and saw that they were not launching the attack yesterday, they just made the arrests. So no one was in imminent danger yesterday.
_________________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596226 - 08/11/06 02:47 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
100 Club
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 186
IN
|
What does it matter when the plot was to take place?!?!? The fact remains that there was a plot and that it was foiled! Get over it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596227 - 08/11/06 02:48 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Of course, there is zero evidence that the program is being abused
i doubt it has been abused....yet. the obvious concern is about potential for abuse. if the legislate parameters for what can and cannot be done, this becomes a non issue. the reason i am concerned is because there has been no effort to do so. it is only one or the other for the political entities.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596229 - 08/11/06 02:55 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
What does it matter when the plot was to take place?!?!? The fact remains that there was a plot and that it was foiled! Get over it.
Geesh, I didn't say it wasn't good that the plot was foiled. Just that no one was ripped from the jaws of death like this is being portrayed. Why don't you get over it?
wait, so because they terrorists weren't removed from the plane right before takeoff, this wasn't something more than just a foiled plan? didn't these people already do a rehearsal run or was it that they caught it right before the rehearsal run?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596230 - 08/11/06 02:57 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I was watching the news last night and saw that they were not launching the attack yesterday, they just made the arrests. So no one was in imminent danger yesterday.
No one was in danger yesterday. They had everything they needed and were going to do a practice run this coming week to see if they could get all of the components past the security checkpoints. Their plane tickets had been purchased for the practice run. They also had been scoping out upcoming airline schedules for the actual event. Intellegence agencies were monitoring their internet searches and knew what they were doing. Could this be what the president of Iran has been alluding to?
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#596231 - 08/11/06 03:18 PM
Re: UK - US Terror Threat
|
10K Club
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,854
Pulling people out of the ditc...
|
Wow - you have one news media saying the threat was immenint and was to take place yesterday. You have another saying it was only a practice run, no threat yesterday. So why would you choose to believe the lesser of 2, that it was only a practiec run? I just wish the current administration would be more cohesive in the information they compel the media to deliver to us. 
_________________________
Providing alternative truths since the invention of time
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index