I think the question people are asking is what is your point? The thread asks if this was a credibel threat or not. Are you trying to say it wasn’t?
See post #28.
I do not understand the “tremendous resources” part above. Seems to me that hard part is getting the terrorists in place without police getting wind. Once the terrorists are safely in place in, say, Great Britain the rest seems simple. I am not a chemist but I remember enough from high school to know that you can make things that go boom from items found in your local supermarket. Send a message to your guys with some simple instructions on making a binary explosive, tell them to buy a ticket on X day and to mix the two bottles at X time and shake. The bomb need not be hugely powerful to seriously mess up a commercial plane.
Well, that sure clears things up!
You know, saying that these guys might actually have been dangerous is not an endorsement of Bush. 
I remember seeing an interveiw with someone who was supposed to be an expert on ObL (can’t remember his name). He pointed out that ObL’s M.O. is to try and make every terror attack “bigger” than the last one. If that’s true, then it would take a lot of resources to put the next plan into effect. Frankly, I’m amazed that we don’t have smallish suicide bomber attacks in the US farily often.
I’ve been watching the news here. There are next to no U.K. sources. Fortunately, the U.S. apparently got fully briefed, and is leaking like a sieve. 
I imagine this is a deliberate ploy to justify events without prejudicing any future trial (which release of info within the U.K. might do).
I think it isn’t out of line to point out that the key was police work. The threat wasn’t blocked by sending an army of 100000 crashing into some country. These sorts of acts are criminal consipiricies and are best countered by police methods and not tanks, artillery and jet aircraft no matter how smart the bombs.
So they were wannabes; so what? If a wannabe gets his bomb aboard the plane and blows it up, you’re still fucking dead. The so-called “amateurs” managed to kill three thousand people in one day on 9/11 and have killed a bunch more in Bali, London, and Madrid.
Frankly, if my plane augers into a cornfield because Ali the Amateur managed to slip a bomb past the speds working the metal detector, it’s not going to make me feel any better that, in your eyes, he was just lucky.
The subject of the thread is whether or not the threat was credible. You’ve already admitted “amateurs” can be a credible threat. So what’s your point?
Threat assessment is difficult when all sources of information are freighted with agenda. It is entirely in the interests of the Bushiviks to stress the significance of these events. They have shown, shall we say, a certain predeliction towards exaggeration.
The phrase “two bits” was meant to infer the thin degree of confidence I have in my conjecture: as in “just guessing”. I don’t know any more about this than you, which I’m guessing is squat. When I’m operating on instinct and bias, I try to be aware of it and speak accordingly. Should have been clearer, my opinion is largely unformed outside of a general disposition not to trust people who have lied to me before.
And of course it makes a difference, simply as a matter of threat assessment. An “amatuer” wouldn’t be trained and schooled in the relentless secrecy that a successful conspiracy depends upon, just as a “for instance”. If you need a spectrum for amatuer to professional, think that bunch of clowns down in Miami to Mossad assassins.
I already know that it is in the interests of Bushco to portray these people as cunning masters of dark arts. Permit me my skepticism until reliable facts are avaliable.
Does it matter?
I hate to annoy anyone who finds the following ideologically or politically inconvienent, but there are people out there actively working to kill as many of us as possible. The latest news reports say these people had been tracked for weeks with U.S., British and Pakistani forces cooperating in the investigation.
While this tracking and investigating was going on, people on these boards and elsewhere were busily making noises about conspiracy threories, “false alerts” and generally trying to pretend that we are not at war with these people.
I’m glad thousands of people weren’t killed this time. But if there was a positive about 9/11 it was the fact that it was a 2X4 upside the head of people that find institutions like the CIA and the military ideologically offensive.
A second tragic attack would have been the second whack that some people still apparently need before they begin pulling the plow in the same direction as the rest of us. This plot failed…but another tragedy of 9/11 magnitude is inevitible.
When it comes, those who are doing their best to inhibit the war on terror for short term political gain or for the sake of idoelogical purity will be offered a steaming cup of STFU.
Particularly when their weapon of choice appears to be some variation on Diet Coke and Mentos.
Could be serious, could be half-baked wannabes. Given the track records of the people in charge of this clown act, a certain level of skepticism seems quite prudent.
So the order for the terrorists to act came from Pakistan:
Wasn’t the group that was supposed to hunt for Bin Laden disbanded recently?
The news after the other arrests began to pile doubts, not in this case.
As for others “trying to pretent that we are not at war”: are the prisoner’s in Guantanamo prisoners of war then?
Really, what I have seen is many pointing out this is indeed a war, but it is being fought in a half assed way by this current administration. (Still more tax cuts in this hour of need!)
Like the President when he gets the information or reports on the field he doesn’t like? (Bush: Shit, do I have now to look for what’s his name in Pakistan, that guy whom I said he was not important to the big terror group anymore or useless?) (Good thing, we decided to look in Iraq)
Ah, the old Heads I win, tails you Lose BS, the STFU will indeed be a demagogic ideological cup of BS.
Has there been any official statement that confirms that explosives were in fact seized, that the people arrested had explosives, or that the people arrested even had access to explosives?
I’ve seen a lot of “officials say they were planning to use liquid explosives”, but that could mean any number of things from “they had explosives and were arrested with them” to “they were overheard on surveillance tapes saying ‘yeah man, let’s get some explosives!’”. I can’t help but think of those clowns in Florida who were arrested after trying to make contact with an undercover officer posing as al-Qaeda. Is there any evidence at all that the people arrested in London are any more serious of a threat than those guys?
It’s hard to express my desire to throw up when someone says, “there are people out there trying to kill as many of us as possible” as if explaining something for the third time to a backward child.
And who is actively “doing their best to inhibit the war on terror” and what things are they doing in that direction?
I’m guessing its the same people who “find institutions like the CIA and the military ideologically offensive.” Amish?
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
It’s hard to express my desire to throw up when someone says, “there are people out there trying to kill as many of us as possible” as if explaining something for the third time to a backward child.
/QUOTE]
There are many many threads on right here in GD where intelligent people (not backwards children) have totally denied that the terrorists are anything to worry about.
Practically every thread related to the Patriot Act, or to the arrest of Jose Padilla, or the wiretapping by the NSA, include lots of Dopers who think that all these subjects are worse than the danger posed by terrorists.
So unfortunately, it does have to be repeated:" there are people out there trying to kill us". Please don’t throw up.
Of course you have some choice quotes and links to back that up?
[QUOTE=chappachula]
There is a search function that would allow you to look up such threads and posts and refer us to them.
And well they might be. To say that one thing is worse than, or as bad as, another doesn’t mean that both aren’t bad. I don’t see how citing one danger nagates the other.
It seems obvious to me that to lunge into restrictive and instrusive measures on the sole initiative of the executive in the name of national defense and to give the executive powers that are not subject to review by anyone is a most dangerous course to take.
Anyone who leans in this direction:
“The NSA is listening to overseas calls?! It’s big brother! Slippery slope! For gods sake…SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!”
NSA intercepts reportedly contributed to the beginnings of this investigation. An inconvienent truth indeed.
Or gems like these:
“Don’t be mean to those prisoners!”
“9/11 is just an excuse!”
“Close Gitmo!”
All of those and more roughly translate into “My ideological bias makes it uncomfortable for me to face reality”.
While some of us are busy revealing intelligence gathering methods in the newspaper and trying to keep prisoners from being interrogated, the people that want to kill us (pause for retching) are hard at work. They were stopped this time, but eventually they will succeed. Their efforts will be made more difficult if we were all willing to face reality and face up to the concept of getting our hands dirty. Those opposing some of the harsher measures necessary to face the threat are either blissfully unaware of its existence or are willing to sacrifice American lives for their principles.
Well gee, I"m convinced. :smack: It’s obvious that anyone who wants some check on executive power aids and abets those who hate us for our freedom. :rolleyes: