Author Topic: UK airline bomb plot thwarted (Read 3314 times)

Golfer · « **Reply #75 on:** August 10, 2006, 10:43:50 PM »

I'd rather have them thinking small rather than big.

The last thing we need is something like September 11th again. 3000 dead the first time around was enough for me to have enough resolve to see through to the end. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime though.

cav58d · « **Reply #76 on:** August 10, 2006, 11:23:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Excellent job by the Brits...

Now somebody tell me how the Iraq war helped in all this? I wonder how much easier it would be to fight "terror" if we had all those resources actually fighting "terror".

The war on terror is larger then the physical attacks of September 11th...It is against the entire ideology of anti west, placing fear, and hatred....

And for all of you who care complaining about your civil libs, and how they have been infringed....

Less you not forget, "The pursuit of LIFE, liberty and happiness (sp)...Notice LIFE coming first...Whenever I hear you people say we are losing so much by adding security, over freedom's, I really think you are forgetting what it would be like to lose "so much"...To lose everything....WHICH IS YOUR LIFE...

Take the United Kingdom for example...There laws allow much easier investigation into terror...Instead of probable cause, they can use probable suspicion...If Joe has recently been associating with Ned, and Ned is a known extremist, the United Kingdon uses that suspicon(sp) as grounds for search and possibly seizure...

Many would argue thats infringing on civil liberties, but I wouldnt say that the people of the UK are living in fear of a government invading their privacy

Seagoon · « **Reply #77 on:** August 10, 2006, 11:58:06 PM »

Hi MT,

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Excellent job by the Brits...

Now somebody tell me how the Iraq war helped in all this? I wonder how much easier it would be to fight "terror" if we had all those resources actually fighting "terror".

This is just an observation, but obviously resource allocation goes both ways.

For the last 3 years, Iraq has been a whirlpool sucking in hordes of eager Jihadis, wads of terrorist cash, and tons of high explosives. These "assets" which have been expended at a rather staggering loss rate against our military would have been allocated elsewhere and more than likely used against softer civilian targets. Yes, we are devastated to have lost 2,500 troops (and that includes friends and acquaintances in my case) but one of the reasons AQ and other organizations haven't been too successfull in the West since 9/11 is that the majority of their assets have been committed to Iraq.

Frankly, if there is any value to the conflict in Iraq, it has been that we've been able to fight the Jihadis in a sandbox far from home rather than having to constantly guess where they will be attacking next in Europe and North America.

Also, from a strategic point of view, it has kept the Jihadis themselves divided. Currently within the Muslim brotherhood organizations, there is a huge argument over whether the emphasis should be on ejecting the infidels from the Dar-El-Islam or immediately carrying the Jihad to their territories. AQ is in favor of doing both at the same time, most however favor a purge of the middle east first before moving on to the "cleansing" of the West. If there was no infidel presence in the Dar-El-Islam, the argument over "kill them at home or away" wouldn't exist.

- SEAGOON

Vudak · « **Reply #78 on:** August 11, 2006, 12:10:02 AM »

You can't just nuke Mecca off the face of the earth. Mecca is the most holy place in the entire world to many, many Americans.

Kind of easy to forget that, huh?

Shuckins · « **Reply #79 on:** August 11, 2006, 12:17:33 AM »

Oh for Heaven's sake. The U.S. isn't going to NUKE anybody...unless they nuke us first.

Those suggesting that middle eastern countries be nuked are just spouting off to make a point. They're not serious.

If Mecca is ever turned into a sheet of radioactive glass it will not be us that does it.

If an Isamic government in the middle east ever develops a nuke and a delivery system, and believes they can get away with it, they will bomb Tel Aviv.

Count on it.

cav58d · « **Reply #80 on:** August 11, 2006, 01:06:12 AM »

2 be honest, I actually question whether the US would respond from a nuclear terror attack with nukes?????? Country has gone so far left, and it seems like collateral damage, or casualty's of war (foreign) are more important then our well being.....I just dont see how we could do it

cav58d · « **Reply #81 on:** August 11, 2006, 01:09:39 AM »

Hell...With all the bleeding heart socialists, and liberals, I question whether the US could even fight, on its own terms, a conventional war if attacked by another nation state...What happen's when we bomb their weapons and logistic factory's, and "workers" are killed...Will the bleeding hearts side with them, as they do in this war? Are the bleeding heart liberals really limiting the countrys ability to wage war? I really hope not, but I fear we may already be experiencing it

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #82 on:** August 11, 2006, 01:12:10 AM »

NEVAR FORGET!!!

cav58d · « **Reply #83 on:** August 11, 2006, 02:03:36 AM »

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.

Elfie · « **Reply #84 on:** August 11, 2006, 02:42:27 AM »

*edit* Nvm, Seagoon beat me to it

Mightytboy · « **Reply #85 on:** August 11, 2006, 07:23:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Trikky
Some undoubtedly will blame the West,

Democrat Harry Reid already blames Bush!

Anyone suprised?

Edbert1 · « **Reply #86 on:** August 11, 2006, 07:40:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Golfer
I'd rather have them thinking small rather than big.

The last thing we need is something like September 11th again. 3000 dead the first time around was enough for me to have enough resolve to see through to the end. I don't think it will happen in my lifetime though.

If they popped 10 intercontinental wide-bodies (as was their reported goal) the death toll would be above that figure. perhpas not the finacial hit to infrastructure/companies/banking/etc. as 9-11 but death toll would certainly be equal or greater.

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins

If an Isamic government in the middle east ever develops a nuke and a delivery system, and believes they can get away with it, they will bomb Tel Aviv.

I agree, minus the "get away with it" part, they don't intend to get away with anything, they're obviously suicidal.

Charge · « **Reply #87 on:** August 11, 2006, 07:53:18 AM »

"I agree, minus the "get away with it" part, they don't intend to get away with anything, they're obviously suicidal."

Well, I doubt that. The masterminds are not going to sacrifice themselves in any circumstance but are eager to find morons who will.

-C+

Eagler · « **Reply #88 on:** August 11, 2006, 07:55:41 AM »

heard it could have been as many as 4000 dead which would have topped 9/11
the terror of the unknown as to how it had happened if they'd blown them up mid flight over the atlantic would have caused as much of an uproar as the attacks themselves

I have a solution to future airline bombings/hijackings:

Muslim Airways
"We take one as close to Allah as one can get without a bomb belt"

If a muslim wants to fly, he/she has to fly on that airlines, flown by muslim pilots. Each plane would have a self destruct mechanism on board so if anything funny happened, ie a u turn towards the White House, with a push of a button from the ground controller, the threat is neutralized. I do not believe they would want to explode themselves over the atlantic if the plane was full of their brothers but if they did, all the better...

Momus-- · « **Reply #89 on:** August 11, 2006, 08:08:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
For the last 3 years, Iraq has been a whirlpool sucking in hordes of eager Jihadis, wads of terrorist cash, and tons of high explosives. These "assets" which have been expended at a rather staggering loss rate against our military would have been allocated elsewhere and more than likely used against softer civilian targets. Yes, we are devastated to have lost 2,500 troops (and that includes friends and acquaintances in my case) but one of the reasons AQ and other organizations haven't been too successfull in the West since 9/11 is that the majority of their assets have been committed to Iraq.

Frankly, if there is any value to the conflict in Iraq, it has been that we've been able to fight the Jihadis in a sandbox far from home rather than having to constantly guess where they will be attacking next in Europe and North America.

The "flypaper" thesis is bunk I'm afraid Seagoon. The majority (90% +) of Iraqi insurgents are Iraqis, not foreign global jihadists. Source. Of course, this begs the question; if Iraq was such a hotbed of jihadis before the invasion, how come comparatively few if any Iraqis have ever been implicated in any major terrorist plot outside of Iraq? The answer is of course that what is happening in Iraq by and large a local reaction to the occupation, and is only related to a so-called global jihad in the minds of certain people whose agenda is served by that supposition.

Moreover, the report that underlines the low incidence of foreigners in Iraq as a proportion of the insugents there has this to say on the subject of Saudi insurgents there.

Quote

..the vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathizers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.

So rather that attracting militants who would have otherwise attacked the west, the invasion actually created militants who otherwise may not have taken up arms at all, just as many people warned back in 2002.

So much for that dubious theory I'm afraid.

Quote

Currently within the Muslim brotherhood organizations, there is a huge argument over whether the emphasis should be on ejecting the infidels from the Dar-El-Islam or immediately carrying the Jihad to their territories. AQ is in favor of doing both at the same time, most however favor a purge of the middle east first before moving on to the "cleansing" of the West.

You know what's coming here don't you......?

Source please.