UK Terror Plot [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 01:44 AM

Seems like it was a pretty close call. Kudos to MI-5 and Scotland Yard.<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207682,00.html">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207682,00.html</a>

Don Stugots

08-10-2006, 02:01 AM

i just saw the story on TV.  wholy shit that would have been horrific.  not only is it stopped but they have the scum in custody.  nice work people.

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 02:50 AM

<img width="250" height="166" border="0" src="http://www.cinemastrikesback.com/news/films/casinoroyale/bondcraigbond.jpg" /> "Moneypenny, let Mr. Bauer know he's a fucking pussy." But seriously, I usually sleep with the radio on, and I had heard rumblings about this on WFAN around 4am this morning, but I was still asleep so I thought I was having nightmares or something.

PapaBear

08-10-2006, 03:19 AM

Hair gels are being banned from flights. So much for the US leg of the Duran Duran reunion tour.Thank you, UK. If your good work keeps up, I'll never make fun of your bad attempts at speaking American, again. I may even trade my car in for a Norton Bonneville.I should turn off CNN and go to bed.

A.J.

08-10-2006, 05:35 AM

PapaBear wrote: Hair gels are being banned from flights.  And ALL liquids.  And I read that the only carry-on items that are going to be allowed are wallets and passports -- with the exception of medicines.  As if U.S. security wasn't already a pain in the ass to deal with.  I can't wait for my next business trip.

reeshy

08-10-2006, 05:38 AM

I've to fly into NY tomorrow......can't wait!!!!!!...oh ....wait.....yes...I'll be waiting...a long, long time!!!!!

Ogre

08-10-2006, 05:39 AM

As consequence would have it I am catching a flight out of National tommorrow (Sorry Mr President,  I still call it just "National").  I was planning to just carry on, that is the way I fly whenever possible.  This should be fun.

booster11373

08-10-2006, 05:41 AM

I'm traveling tonight, Cant wait for that safe warm feeling I always get when I see Americas first line of defence against terror.this image was taken on Earth 2<img height="226" src="http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/headlines/100701/Bush_Field_Guard.jpg" width="400" border="0" />

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 06:04 AM

Thoughts and prayers Furie, thoughts and prayers. (applause break)

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 06:05 AM

They're not going to stop until we're all dead.

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 06:12 AM

blakjeezis wrote: They're not going to stop until we're all dead.    Al-Qaeda's newest ally is Skynet?

Furtherman

08-10-2006, 06:15 AM

Well done UK.  They arrested 21.  A group of 21 angry men.  Scary stuff.

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 06:33 AM

It's time to start clipping believers. Any believers."Do you believe in a higher being?""Ye-" Bang. "Next.""Is there a heaven?""Ye-" Bang. "Next."

This message was edited by blakjeezis on 8-10-06 @ 10:35 AM

A.J.

08-10-2006, 06:41 AM

blakjeezis wrote: It's time to start clipping believers. Any believers."Do you believe in a higher being?""Ye-" Bang."Next.""Is there a heaven?""Ye-" Bang. "Next."This message was edited by blakjeezis on 8-10-06 @ 10:35 AM Reminds me of Soviet Russia!<img height="212" src="http://www.yaysports.com/ncaa/images/Yakov%20Smirnoff.jpg" width="225" border="0" />

MadMatt

08-10-2006, 06:44 AM

Are US flights banning cary-ons or just UK flights?  I thought it was just UK, but I could be wrong.  At this point I've only gotten synopsis reports and quick online news stories.Bravo Britain!  Thanks for staying on top of things.

moochcassidy

08-10-2006, 07:04 AM

granted british intellegence did well... but does it not piss you guys off that its brits trying to attack you?theres a paradox in the fact that its the british and the saudis (2 of the US's closest political and economic allies) trying to murder americans.

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 07:12 AM

moochcassidy wrote: granted british intellegence did well... but does it not piss you guys off that its brits trying to attack you?theres a paradox in the fact that its the british and the saudis (2 of the US's closest political and economic allies) trying to murder americans.   ...do we know it's brits?  For all we know, it could be Muslim arabs living in the UK. Never the less, it's not the country that it's attacking, it's a bunch of savages with extremely twisted religious beliefs, who bastardized the original intent of the belief system.

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 07:23 AM

I love the footage that the news networks have been running all morning.  It's the same clips over and over again. 1) Helicopter shot over one of the houses of the people arrested, with the police standing outside, not really doing anything. 2) People standing on line at Heathrow, waiting. 3) B-roll shots of the scoreboards at Heathrow saying "CANCELLED". 4) Footage of EWR, Logan, and LAX.  More footage of people waiting. Denis Leary was right.  Ever since Jack Ruby, and now even more so since 9/11, we will watch the same useless in-action footage because we are convinced that something drastic could happen at any second. I don't get how the Scotland Yard brass are so nattily dressed, but the patrol cops look like total goofs.

moochcassidy

08-10-2006, 07:25 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  moochcassidy wrote: granted british intellegence did well... but does it not piss you guys off that its brits trying to attack you?theres a paradox in the fact that its the british and the saudis (2 of the US's closest political and economic allies) trying to murder americans....do we know it's brits?  For all we know, it could be Muslim arabs living in the UK. Never the less, it's not the country that it's attacking, it's a bunch of savages with extremely twisted religious beliefs, who bastardized the original intent of the belief system. yeah. 21 british born muslim males arrested. looks like most are from birmingham in the north of england. close to where the london tube bombers were from.fuckin scum.

Yerdaddy

08-10-2006, 08:42 AM

A.J. wrote: PapaBear wrote: Hair gels are being banned from flights.  And ALL liquids.  And I read that the only carry-on items that are going to be allowed are wallets and passports -- with the exception of medicines.  As if U.S. security wasn't already a pain in the ass to deal with.  I can't wait for my next business trip.I don't know about you but that "no liquids" rule seriously fucking sucks because I was already planning on carrying my own tube of KY with me on every flight ever after where I've been!

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 8-10-06 @ 12:51 PM

DJEvelEd

08-10-2006, 09:17 AM

Malls & movie theatres are next. Then our rights and lives as we know it will be over. I'd rather be  vaporized watching the 9/11 movie then live in a country where perfume & toothpaste are illegal.The terrorists don't need to blow anything up to win. They just need to turn us into a ploice state and turn us against each other.Maybe this sounds nuts but maybe a republican/democratic presidential ticket is needed to unite our country again. Either that or a 3rd party...

A.J.

08-10-2006, 09:41 AM

So do we ban Duty Free shopping now because bottles of booze or perfume can be used as Molotov Cocktails?Better install these same security measures on our railways too I suppose.  That'll make us safer!

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 09:50 AM

DJEvelEd wrote: Malls & movie theatres are next. Then our rights and lives as we know it will be over. I'd rather be vaporized watching the 9/11 movie then live in a country where perfume & toothpaste are illegal.The terrorists don't need to blow anything up to win. They just need to turn us into a ploice state and turn us against each other.Maybe this sounds nuts but maybe a republican/democratic presidential ticket is needed to unite our country again. Either that or a 3rd party...   Will you calm down?  Nobody is saying anything is illegal, they are just saying you can't take it on carry-on luggage. If anything, it'll make service on an airliner better.

jeffdwright2001

08-10-2006, 09:57 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: If anything, it'll make service on an airliner better.How does the Mile High Club figure in to this?

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 09:59 AM

jeffdwright2001 wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: If anything, it'll make service on an airliner better.How does the Mile High Club figure in to this?   Real simple.  If a lot of stuff that's usually carried on is now banned due to safety reasons, it'll turn it over the airlines to supply what's banned on-board.  Thus then, better service.

jeffdwright2001

08-10-2006, 10:07 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  jeffdwright2001 wrote: Tenbatsuzen wrote: If anything, it'll make service on an airliner better.How does the Mile High Club figure in to this?   Real <strike>simple</strike> convoluted.  If a lot of stuff that's usually carried on is now banned due to safety reasons, it'll turn it over the airlines to supply what's banned on-board.  Thus then, better service.  That's better.

furie

08-10-2006, 11:06 AM

i am fucking beat. I got called in at 0130 this morning over this alert.

Doctor Manhattan

08-10-2006, 11:13 AM

furie wrote: i am fucking beat. I got called in at 0130 this morning over this alert. Do you work for Homeland Security, an Airline, or somthing?

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 11:19 AM

furie wrote: i am fucking beat. I got called in at 0130 this morning over this alert.   See my second post in this thread

Tenbatsuzen

08-10-2006, 11:21 AM

Doctor Manhattan wrote: furie wrote: i am fucking beat. I got called in at 0130 this morning over this alert. Do you work for Homeland Security, an Airline, or somthing?   Even better.  TSA.

furie

08-10-2006, 11:23 AM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Thoughts and prayers Furie, thoughts and prayers. (applause break) 

Ah thank you very much.
all in all, things were fairly smooth on my end. just a long day

furie

08-10-2006, 11:31 AM

Doctor Manhattan wrote: furie wrote: i am fucking beat. I got called in at 0130 this morning over this alert. Do you work for Homeland Security, an Airline, or somthing?

Homeland security. I'm an aviation security inspector. In a nutshell, i ensure that the port authority, the airlines, and all individuals conform to federal regulations.

DJEvelEd

08-10-2006, 12:09 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:  DJEvelEd wrote: Malls & movie theatres are next. Then our rights and lives as we know it will be over. I'd rather be vaporized watching the 9/11 movie then live in a country where perfume & toothpaste are illegal.The terrorists don't need to blow anything up to win. They just need to turn us into a police state and turn us against each other.Maybe this sounds nuts but maybe a republican/democratic presidential ticket is needed to unite our country again. Either that or a 3rd party... Will you calm down?  Nobody is saying anything is illegal, they are just saying you can't take it on carry-on luggage. If anything, it'll make service on an airliner better.OK they're not "illegal" so lets called them banned items. I never check ANYTHING. I always travel with a backpack, a laptop, and a chilled medicine bag for my Testosterone, HCG, Oxycontin, Valium, Neurontin + syringes. I fly 1st class so I don't have to wait around with all you common folk. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/cool.gif" border="0" /> Actually I HAVE to fly 1st because of my bad back BUT I'm taking the train to Orlando next month because the last time I flew 1st class the seat was different and did not lay back. I had to sit on the floor in severe pain the whole flight. I paid for a comfortable seat and wound up sitting in a coach style seat. AWFUL! Screw the airlines!Flying sucks to begin with and now I have to check my luggage? Not me sister!!! I'll be on an Amtrak.....blizzin out!My testosterone comes in an injectable gel, and in a rub on lotion. Would they really make me dose myself before I get on the flight? I'll bring some Viagra too and REALLY chase the stewardesses around the plane. (I think your name must be on the medication you bring with you)What do they do with the DUMPSTERS full of toiletries? People must lose millions of dollars a year in confiscated items. WHO GETS THEM?!?

joeyballsack

08-10-2006, 01:24 PM

Maybe its time to flush the ridiculous idea that racial profiling is a bad thing down the toilet. Its gonna suck for honest Middle Eastern people, but when was the last time that this kind of thing wasnt commited by some kind of Middle East/Muslim affiliation ?

Furtherman

08-10-2006, 01:35 PM

joeyballsack wrote: Its gonna suck for honest Middle Eastern people, but when was the last time that this kind of thing wasnt commited by some kind of Middle East/Muslim affiliation ?<img height="216" src="http://www.lizmichael.com/tmcveigh.jpg" width="152" border="0" />

joeyballsack

08-10-2006, 01:40 PM

Not a plane hijacker though. One crazy white guy is not really a trend either. I read somewhere that while not all Muslims are terrorists, pretty much all terrorist are Muslim. Should we continue to keep glossing over that fact in order to be politically correct ?

Furtherman

08-10-2006, 01:42 PM

Not at all, I was just pointing out a terrorist who wasnt' middle eastern. I think the profiling should take place as well.  It's really the only effective prevention.  There is a profile, and if it should change, then we deal with the changes.

cougarjake13

08-10-2006, 01:52 PM

blakjeezis wrote: It's time to start clipping believers. Any believers."Do you believe in a higher being?""Ye-" Bang."Next.""Is there a heaven?""Ye-" Bang. "Next."i liked that joke better when george carlin did it as for racial profiling fuck em ... all middle easterners, muslims and the like are hereby banned from ever flying in the united states or from another country to the united statesit may suck for those above mentioned races/ religious people but we have to protect ourselves first and foremost and we shouldn't have to change our lives because of these terrorists, every time they come up with something new and we bust them they'll just come up with something else, until it gets to the point that we can never leave our homes b/c of terroristsi've always been surprised that the terrorists haven't hit a mall or stadium, think about it shea stadium right near laguardia has anywhere from 30,000 people or more or what about manhattan during xmas time ?personally if i were president i'd just lay the entire middle east to waste right now, any innocent civilians would be just collateral damage, if it would cause world war 3

Hottub

08-10-2006, 02:01 PM

I read somewhere Was it on the internet? Then it must be true!Racial profiling is an ugly, ugly game. Too many innocent people being harassed. In turn, the innocent become resentful. Then again, it is a game of playing the odds. If you are looking to find people who conduct themselves in a certain way, looking toward a particular group can possibly (not definitely) rule out a large percentage of the population.Is it evil? Absolutely. Is it a necessary evil? Yes, I think it is.

Thebazile78

08-10-2006, 02:09 PM

MadMatt wrote: Are US flights banning cary-ons or just UK flights? I thought it was just UK, but I could be wrong. At this point I've only gotten synopsis reports and quick online news stories.Bravo Britain! Thanks for staying on top of things.  From a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/world/europe/10cnd-latest.html" target="_blank" title="8/10/06 - Summary of Today's Developments">news summary on the NY Times online</a>: • Passengers in the United States are barred from carrying any
liquids, gels or lotions on board aircraft unless it is in checked
baggage. Exceptions are made for prescription medicines and baby
formula, but they too will be scrutinized at checkpoints. •
British officials ban all carry-on baggage from flights, allowing
passengers to carry only personal effects like wallets, eyeglasses,
passports and keys. This is a list of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Terror-Plot-Glance.html" target="_blank">New Items Banned on Flights</a> and it includes the <a href="http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/threat-change.shtm" target="_blank" title="8/10/06 - TSA Banned Items List">link to the official TSA site</a>. AJ is right; it's all liquids and gels. The only exceptions are prescription medicines for patients whose names match the name on the boarding pass/ticket and juice, formula and breast milk for babies and small children. On international flights, the rumor was that they'd banned electronics, including cell phones, iPods, Blackberry devices and laptops. I believe that this may still be the case for many international flights. TSA advises folks to leave extra early for their departing flights out of any airport, regardless of your destination, since the additional security will take extra time to work your way through.

joeyballsack

08-10-2006, 02:12 PM

Since Furie works for TSA, maybe he can answer if this statement is true or not.During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman stated that …it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory.    The article I got that from also listed fines that airlines had recieved for discriminatory practices.In November 2003, United Airlines settled their case with the DOT for $1.5 million. In March 2004, American Airlines settled their case with the DOT for $1.5 million. The DOT also charged Continental Airlines with discriminating against passengers who appeared to be Arab, Middle Eastern or Muslim. Continental Airlines settled their complaint with the DOT in April of 2004 for $.5 million.   If this is all true, then that is a ridiculous policy that really should be given a hard look at.

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 06:33 PM

i liked that joke better when george carlin did it

I've listened to maybe 15 minutes of that coasting fuck during my time on this planet. Had I known it was his bit, I would have avoided it like it was the plague. However, that doesn't make it the least effective way of dealing with these poor, disillusioned people. Plus, anyone who is so lost in their 'faith' that they would need to demonstrate it to the world by saying that they believe with a gun to their head, knowing that they were going to die for doing so is EXACTLY the same type of person who would fly a plane into a building, so it clears all them out right at the outset.

newport king

08-10-2006, 07:22 PM

I had to sit on the floor in severe pain the whole flightYou can't sit in a normal chair for an hour and a half? How do you make it through a movie?

epo

08-10-2006, 08:10 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: Never the less, it's not the country that it's attacking, it's a bunch of savages with extremely twisted religious beliefs, who bastardized the original intent of the belief system.Great point Tenbatsuzen.  We should turn this "war on terror" over to intelligence agencies and special ops forces.  The longer we do shit like attack nation states over this war, the longer we fail.  Historically we look like the British Redcoats with our outdated tactics against these idiots.  With the intelligence, technology and quality manpower we have as a nation, there is no reason we can't win this effort more inexpensively (monetarily & human lives) & logically than current tactics would allow for now.

HeyGuy

08-10-2006, 08:13 PM

newport king wrote:  I had to sit on the floor in severe pain the whole flight  You can't sit in a normal chair for an hour and a half? How do you make it through a movie?Also, how do you have such back pain? Your in your 30's right? What the hell did you do to yourself to have such a bad back?

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 08:20 PM

blakjeezis wrote: i liked that joke better when george carlin did it I've listened to maybe 15 minutes of that coasting fuck during my time on this planet. Had I known it was his bit, I would have avoided it like it was the plague. However, that doesn't make it the least effective way of dealing with these poor, disillusioned people. Plus, anyone who is so lost in their 'faith' that they would need to demonstrate it to the world by saying that they believe with a gun to their head, knowing that they were going to die for doing so is EXACTLY the same type of person who would fly a plane into a building, so it clears all them out right at the outset. That's retarded.

KC2OSO

08-10-2006, 08:25 PM

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 08:28 PM

My point is that religion is not a rational endeavor. Indeed, it is the very opposite. It causes people to do things that are beyond the scope of logical thought, such as fly a plane into a building, or declare their undying faith when the obvious outcome is going to be their death.

Is it still retarded, or do I need to explain some more?

HBox

08-10-2006, 08:31 PM

My point is that religion is not a rational endeavor. Indeed, it is the
very opposite. It causes people to do things that are beyond the scope
of logical thought, such as fly a plane into a building, or declare
their undying faith when the obvious outcome is going to be their death.Or, much more often, it causes them to do selfless things like help the poor, or go on a mission to Africa, or feed the homeless when there is nothing to gain for themselves.

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 08:32 PM

All things that a rational person will do without religious prompting.

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 08:34 PM

Fly a plane into a building.All things that a rational person will do without religious prompting.

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 08:36 PM

Fly a plane into a building, with the intent of killing as many people and causing as much disruption and terror as possible? Something any rational person would do? Name one.

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 08:37 PM

Rational or non-religious?

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 08:39 PM

Rational encompasses non-religious. Although, non-religious does not mean rational.

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 08:41 PM

I say we just kill all irrational people then.

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 08:45 PM

Yeah. Sounds good to me. At least the dangerous ones.

This message was edited by blakjeezis on 8-11-06 @ 12:46 AM

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 08:46 PM

blakjeezis wrote: It's time to start clipping believers. Any believers."Do you believe in a higher being?""Ye-" Bang."Next.""Is there a heaven?""Ye-" Bang. "Next."This message was edited by blakjeezis on 8-10-06 @ 10:35 AM <img src="http://www.rachelscott.com/images/Victims/cassie.jpg" border="0" /><a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14726">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14726</a>

HBox

08-10-2006, 08:51 PM

blakjeezis wrote: All things that a rational person will do without religious prompting.   Really? What is rational about giving up you own life completely in the service of others?If we are going by that logic, there are very horrible things that are completely irrational that non-religious people have done.Religion has less and less negative impacts as a society progresses and modernizes, which is the REAL base issue here.

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 08:53 PM

Yes, it's a very sad story about two misguided teenagers with a tragic ending.

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 08:54 PM

blakjeezis wrote: Yes, it's a very sad story about two misguided teenagers with a tragic ending. Must be their religion.

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 08:59 PM

What is rational about giving up you own life completely in the service of others

Plenty. There's all types of scientific evidence of the evolutionary value of self-sacrifice and group membership and so forth.

And again, I didn't say all irrational people are religious. I said all religious people are irrational.

And yes, as the world advances religion does indeed become more and more unnecessary and irrelevant.

HBox

08-10-2006, 09:04 PM

blakjeezis wrote: What is rational about giving up you own life completely in the service of others

Plenty. There's all types of scientific evidence of the evolutionary value of self-sacrifice and group membership and so forth.

And again, I didn't say all irrational people are religious. I said all religious people are irrational.

And yes, as the world advances religion does indeed become more and more unnecessary and irrelevant.   I think its completely asinine to make an assumption about people simply based on one aspect of their life. I guarantee there are people much smarter and more rational than you or I who are religious.

blakjeezis

08-10-2006, 09:11 PM

And another thing!

Must be their religion.

It was actually only one of their religions. Although I doubt it would have made a difference if she had said yes, or no, or splunge, or bleen. She would have still been dead.

But think of this, if that was your child, and what she said would have meant the difference between getting shot or not, would you rather she said "Yes, I believe in god," or be alive?

Intelligence and rationality are two completely different things. Einstein believed (I think). I know Galileo and Newton did. But, fundamentally, religious belief, just like the belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or flying carpets is irrational.

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 09:25 PM

But I don't see how every "irrational" religious person can be capable of mass murder. If someone put a gun to my hide and was going to shoot me if I didn't denounce god, i'd probably let him shoot me. If someone put a gun on anyone else and said they would shoot them if I didn't denounce god, I would probably denounce god. The first situation is different because it is only my life. Would I die for my faith, ya I guess I would. Would I want anyone else to die for my faith, absolutely not.

FMJeff

08-10-2006, 09:32 PM

ok so begins my conspiracy theory. In a statement read by some deputy police commissioner in England, he says and I paraphrase "these men were planning to execute a plot that would've resulted in a massacre of epic proportions". i dunno, maybe its just me, but the prose used to describe this foiled attempt has been consistently laced with apocalyptic language and it seems to me when someone goes the extra mile to describe something in the worst manner possible that the purpose in doing so is to scare and scare deeply. seems fishy to me...like some kind of plan to show the public wire taps are ok, detention without due process is ok, that measures institued that step on civil liberties now prove justified...

PapaBear

08-10-2006, 09:41 PM

They keep talking about how the plot was ready to be implemented within days. If they had done it today (Friday) that would be the 11th. Why do they do so many of these things on the 11th?I think terrorists are all Negativland fans..."Do you know how many time zones they have?" "Uh, yessir. Uh, four ... uh, nosir. I never really studied that up." "Eleven." "Eleven. It's not even funny." "Eleven." "Eleven. That's, that's ridiculous." "Eleven." "Eleven. Well, that's what we can do. We can go anywhere, because we live here, we--" "Yeah, but--" "--anywhere else." "But, not only, not only the right of free travel, I'm saying...eleven." "Eleven. 1, 2, 3 ... yessir." "Mm hm. Eleven." "Eleve n." "That's how big they are." "Yeah. Yeah. Eleven." Seriously, though.... There was our 9-11. England's attack was on the 11th. Spain was the 11th. I can't remember what the others are, but there were other attacks on the 11th, too. I heard experts talk a few years back about how Al Qaeda doesn't place any importance on planning attacks on certain dates, but this is just crazy.

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 09:42 PM

The bus bombings in England last year were on 7/7

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 09:44 PM

detention without due process We have that now?

PapaBear

08-10-2006, 09:46 PM

CuzBum wrote: The bus bombings in England last year were on 7/7 oops.However..  7... 11...  convience store... racial profiling... I still think there may be something to it.

PapaBear

08-10-2006, 09:47 PM

CuzBum wrote:  detention without due process  We have that now?Yes, we do. Thanks to the Patriot Act.

HBox

08-10-2006, 09:49 PM

FMJeff wrote: ok so begins my conspiracy theory. In a statement read by some deputy police commissioner in England, he says and I paraphrase "these men were planning to execute a plot that would've resulted in a massacre of epic proportions". i dunno, maybe its just me, but the prose used to describe this foiled attempt has been consistently laced with apocalyptic language and it seems to me when someone goes the extra mile to describe something in the worst manner possible that the purpose in doing so is to scare and scare deeply. seems fishy to me...like some kind of plan to show the public wire taps are ok, detention without due process is ok, that measures institued that step on civil liberties now prove justified...   This whole thing took place in England. I'm not certain what kind of steps they have taken over there, but it is a different country so it is different circumstances.

HBox

08-10-2006, 09:50 PM

CuzBum wrote:  detention without due process  We have that now?  Yeah. You, uh, might want to read the news or something.

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 09:57 PM

HBox wrote:  CuzBum wrote:  detention without due process  We have that now?  Yeah. You, uh, might want to read the news or something. Isn't it the job of the supreme court to determine if laws are unconstitutional?"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Eh . . .?

HBox

08-10-2006, 10:03 PM

CuzBum wrote: HBox wrote: CuzBum wrote: detention without due process We have that now? Yeah. You, uh, might want to read the news or something. Isn't it the job of the supreme court to determine if laws are unconstitutional?"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Eh . . .?  Yeah, and that's what, after a very long time, they did. Go and Google "Hamdan decision" and do some reading. the Bush administration said they would honor the decision, but haven't yet and are still trying to find out how to wriggle out of it.

PapaBear

08-10-2006, 10:04 PM

A few things have happened since the Constitution was written. In the past 5 years, many many people have been detained without legal representation, charges, or communication with family. This isn't a "wild conspiracy theory". It's a statement of fact.

CuzBum

08-10-2006, 10:20 PM

What led the Supreme Court to rule against the military commissions, was it they were against the constitution or that they were against the Geneva Convention? I also see the admin is going to appeal to Congress, what are the chances they get special authorization to implement these "commisons", which, from what I have read, are the furthest thing from a fair trial.*Edit* And also about the wire taps, what is the big deal about going through a judge and doing it right?

This message was edited by CuzBum on 8-11-06 @ 2:24 AM

A.J.

08-11-2006, 03:45 AM

joeyballsack wrote: Maybe its time to flush the ridiculous idea that racial profiling is a bad thing down the toilet. Its gonna suck for honest Middle Eastern people, but when was the last time that this kind of thing wasnt commited by some kind of Middle East/Muslim affiliation ?See the explosions in Bali in Indonesia in 2002 and 2005.Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation.  There are also East Asian muslims, Chinese muslims, South Asian muslims and African muslims.  Focusing on Middle Easterners alone is foolish.

HeyGuy

08-11-2006, 04:06 AM

HBox wrote:  My point is that religion is not a rational endeavor. Indeed, it is the very opposite. It causes people to do things that are beyond the scope of logical thought, such as fly a plane into a building, or declare their undying faith when the obvious outcome is going to be their death.  Or, much more often, it causes them to do selfless things like help the poor, or go on a mission to Africa, or feed the homeless when there is nothing to gain for themselves. So only religous people do this? Wrong I do not believe in any religion but I have done many of things for others, because its the right thing to do. Religion isnt the only reason to be a good person. There are a lot of people that use the fact that they are religious so they must be good people. Well there are a lot of religious people that are not good.

HeyGuy

08-11-2006, 04:11 AM

FMJeff wrote: ok so begins my conspiracy theory. In a statement read by some deputy police commissioner in England, he says and I paraphrase "these men were planning to execute a plot that would've resulted in a massacre of epic proportions". i dunno, maybe its just me, but the prose used to describe this foiled attempt has been consistently laced with apocalyptic language and it seems to me when someone goes the extra mile to describe something in the worst manner possible that the purpose in doing so is to scare and scare deeply. seems fishy to me...like some kind of plan to show the public wire taps are ok, detention without due process is ok, that measures institued that step on civil liberties now prove justified... I dont think this would surprise anyone. The mid term elections are coming up and the republicans win on fear. So what better way to get them some votes then by saying republicans will protect you dems wont?

CuzBum

08-11-2006, 04:17 AM

So only religous people do this? Wrong  He didn't say anything close to that.

This message was edited by CuzBum on 8-11-06 @ 8:22 AM

CuzBum

08-11-2006, 04:24 AM

CampoNJ wrote: FMJeff wrote: ok so begins my conspiracy theory. In a statement read by some deputy police commissioner in England, he says and I paraphrase "these men were planning to execute a plot that would've resulted in a massacre of epic proportions". i dunno, maybe its just me, but the prose used to describe this foiled attempt has been consistently laced with apocalyptic language and it seems to me when someone goes the extra mile to describe something in the worst manner possible that the purpose in doing so is to scare and scare deeply. seems fishy to me...like some kind of plan to show the public wire taps are ok, detention without due process is ok, that measures institued that step on civil liberties now prove justified... I dont think this would surprise anyone. The mid term elections are coming up and the republicans win on fear. So what better way to get them some votes then by saying republicans will protect you dems wont?So this Deputy Police Commisioner works for the Republicans?

FMJeff

08-11-2006, 06:28 AM

CuzBum wrote: CampoNJ wrote: FMJeff wrote: ok so begins my conspiracy theory. In a statement read by some deputy police commissioner in England, he says and I paraphrase "these men were planning to execute a plot that would've resulted in a massacre of epic proportions". i dunno, maybe its just me, but the prose used to describe this foiled attempt has been consistently laced with apocalyptic language and it seems to me when someone goes the extra mile to describe something in the worst manner possible that the purpose in doing so is to scare and scare deeply. seems fishy to me...like some kind of plan to show the public wire taps are ok, detention without due process is ok, that measures institued that step on civil liberties now prove justified... I dont think this would surprise anyone. The mid term elections are coming up and the republicans win on fear. So what better way to get them some votes then by saying republicans will protect you dems wont?So this Deputy Police Commisioner works for the Republicans?  no, whomever is writing the statements being read...a message is being crafted here, its an organized effort...

angrymissy

08-11-2006, 06:34 AM

I don't want to sound all wacky tin foil hat-ish, but they are now starting to allude to the fact that wiretapping caught these "potential terrorists".  I know the administration has a giant hard on right now for basically "emergency wiretapping" where they can wiretap without a court order.  It just seems suspicious to me.  They even brought it up on some of the major news networks, which was a little shocking to me. I'm starting to think it's the government trying to instill fear in us, not the terrorists

This message was edited by angrymissy on 8-11-06 @ 10:36 AM

Se7en

08-11-2006, 10:01 AM

Or it could be, you know, Occam's Razor again.  Could be the fact that phone surveillance actually WORKS.And, in fact, did so here, as call intercepts, bank record surveillance, and data mining - you know, all things that the NYT and certain liberals tell us are BAD, BAD things - actually were vitally instrumental in helping the British stop this operation from happening. BTW, I just wanted to post this little tidbit, since I remember some people here talking about how AWESOME George Galloway was, just because he likes to bash America over Iraq.  Well, apparently he <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006370177,00.html" target="_self">met numerous times</a> with Waheed Zaman - one of the men arrested yesterday as conspiring to pull off this plot.  But hey, George says that he doesn't really remember him.  Just like he doesn't remember being so completely involved in the oil-for-food scandal with Saddam.Now I want you all to listen to me. He did. NOT. Have personal relations. With that man. Waheed Zaman.

furie

08-11-2006, 01:21 PM

joeyballsack wrote: Since Furie works for TSA, maybe he can answer if this statement is true or not.During the 9/11 hearings last April, 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman stated that .it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory. The article I got that from also listed fines that airlines had recieved for discriminatory practices.In November 2003, United Airlines settled their case with the DOT for $1.5 million. In March 2004, American Airlines settled their case with the DOT for $1.5 million. The DOT also charged Continental Airlines with discriminating against passengers who appeared to be Arab, Middle Eastern or Muslim. Continental Airlines settled their complaint with the DOT in April of 2004 for $.5 million. If this is all true, then that is a ridiculous policy that really should be given a hard look at. 

thaT was true, but since the federalization of of the screening checkpoints, the airlines don't conduct any kind of questioning or detention of passengers.

the airlines do however still have the responcibility it identify passengers who are selected for secondary screening. this screening is usually done by the tsa screeners. the airlines don't just assign the selectee status to anyone or at random. it is assigned by the computer system called CAPPS.

eventually the airlines will be taken out of the mix entirely.

that's a long answer for, No that is not true. and the TSA has no prohibition to who or how many persons can be stopped, searched, or questioned.

HBox

08-11-2006, 01:24 PM

So only religous people do this? Wrong I do not
believe in any religion but I have done many of things for others,
because its the right thing to do. Religion isnt the only reason to be
a good person. There are a lot of people that use the fact that they
are religious so they must be good people. Well there are a lot of
religious people that are not good. Well, when you can quote where I said that we can continue this conversation. As it is, you are arguing with no one. 

This message was edited by HBox on 8-11-06 @ 6:05 PM

furie

08-11-2006, 01:31 PM

CuzBum wrote: detention without due process We have that now?

does the name Jose Padilla mean anything to you?

HBox

08-11-2006, 01:34 PM

Or it could be, you know, Occam's Razor again.  Could be the fact that phone surveillance actually WORKS.And,
in fact, did so here, as call intercepts, bank record surveillance, and
data mining - you know, all things that the NYT and certain liberals
tell us are BAD, BAD things - actually were vitally instrumental in
helping the British stop this operation from happening. I don't know why I'm bothering since you rarely if ever post in a thread twice, but the complaints about everything you mentioned were the circumvention of safeguards while doing such things, like not attempting get warrants when required and just surveilling anything and everything they want.And, again, these people were British and all planning took place in Britain. None were American citizens, and most of the criticism centered around warrantless surveillance of American citizens.If anyone here is knowledgeable about what the laws are like in the UK and how they compare to US laws then maybe we can get somewhere. But even then its not a straight comparison since the UK has a much bigger problem with its own homegrown citizens getting involved in this stuff.

Tenbatsuzen

08-11-2006, 01:42 PM

FMJeff wrote: ok so begins my conspiracy theory. In a statement read by some deputy police commissioner in England, he says and I paraphrase "these men were planning to execute a plot that would've resulted in a massacre of epic proportions". i dunno, maybe its just me, but the prose used to describe this foiled attempt has been consistently laced with apocalyptic language and it seems to me when someone goes the extra mile to describe something in the worst manner possible that the purpose in doing so is to scare and scare deeply. seems fishy to me...like some kind of plan to show the public wire taps are ok, detention without due process is ok, that measures institued that step on civil liberties now prove justified...    Yeah, but you're missing the key fact: IT'S ALL BASED IN ENGLAND. I don't think the English politicians and officials are letting the US write for them in order to further the US political agenda. And I'm not sure what the wiretapping laws are in England.... but obviously, things are different over there.

Thebazile78

08-11-2006, 02:10 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote: FMJeff wrote: ... seems fishy to me...like some kind of plan to show the public wire taps are ok, detention without due process is ok, that measures institued that step on civil liberties now prove justified... ... And I'm not sure what the wiretapping laws are in England.... but obviously, things are different over there.   You bet your hat they're different over there.And I'm not just talking accents, taxes and a figurehead monarchy.One of the reasons they were able to get suspects' names was . . . they've got connections with Pakistan, a country that the USA doesn't deal with because they're an aider-abettor of terrorism, much like Syria. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4783141.stm" target="_blank" title="Coverage of 8/10 Foiled Terror Plot - BBC">On the BBC site</a>, they've described the methods used to find these guys, and yeah, the sense of what your civil liberties are and are not ARE different in Britain than they are here. You do what's necessary for the sake of the nation. And, if that means wiretapping, they figure the MI-5 does it anyway.  One of the frequently-quoted officials on the BBC site is their Michael Chertoff-equivalent John Reid. He doesn't pull any punches when he's describing things. Mr. Reid believes there's a long, hard road ahead, which is made even harder by the fact that many of the arrestees were BORN IN BRITAIN. That's a threat coming from WITHIN. . .it's the equivalent some guy from Detroit being rounded up in a terrorism plot in the USA. Or even an American of German (etc.) descent defecting to Germany to fight with the Reich during WWII.Losses of civil liberties tend to make me start screaming about 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale especially in the USA. Because it's happened in Britain doesn't make it OK, but it does raise some interesting points. . .where do we draw the line? What gray areas will we need to probe in order to do a better job at keeping our people secure? <a href="http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/1984/2?term=war%20is%20peace" target="_blank" title="1984 - Chapter 2">Or how much more paranoia can the media fuel to make us that much more docile?</a>What certainty had he that a single human creature now living was on
his side? And what way of knowing that the dominion of the Party would
not endure for ever? Like an answer, the three slogans on the white
face of the Ministry of Truth came back to him: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

high fly

08-15-2006, 04:45 PM

Shawn Manatee said they were able to round up the suspects because of the Patriot Act and the NSA domestic spying program.Good thing they are busting them in London so they don't have to bust them in Iraq....