Major Terrorist Threat in UK-US discovered
 

0200, August 10, London

The terrorist threat has just been raised to its highest level, "Critical", in the United Kingdom and the highest levels of security now in place as a perceived serious threat of a major terror attack. \

CNN reports the Terror alert level CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently.

A major plot was discovered that had plans for 20 UK and US flights between UK and American cities to be "blown-up" in mid-flight, creating an event on a larger scale than 9/11.

ALL flights in and out of the United Kingdom under extreme security measures, including NO carry-on items except essential items ID, cash, medicine, baby food - carried only in a clear plastic bag).

Stringent security guidelines in place, including the cancellation of flights.

Even liquid in baby bottles is suspect and an adult passenger must drink/ingest the liquid in front of authorities before clearance will be given to board.

a few hours ago, Counter-Terrorist authorities arrested 20 suspects involved in the planned attack on the Unied Kingdom and United States. The plot was to detonate carry-on luggage containing explosive / incendiary devices / substances.

Fox News reports the plot "might have been larger than 9/11". "The plot had been in the making for 9 months and all flights targeted were destined for the United States. The FBI will be issuing a statement shortly."

Fox News now reporting: Scotland Yard says that only 6 aircraft were targeted... all flights, worldwide, into Heathrow are on a ground hold.

Liquid items of particular concern.

Please tell me this is some sort of joke...please.

Certainly no joke

Be careful out there today, everyone. Here's hoping no one had to fly today, because apparently it's going to be pretty ugly in terms of delays, and security is going to be ultra tight.

Big doings in the news today. I also heard something about the plot involving hiding explosives in hair care product containers.

Wow. Paul Mitchell on the "No-Fly" list.

A lot of details will be sketchy right now, but essentially it appears the plot was to detonate liquid explosives carried on in hand baggage. Therefore, nothing in liquid or gel form is being allowed in a carryon bag; the only exception is baby bottles, and apparently they are making the passenger taste the liquid before boarding.

If you're flying today, be prepared for a huge PITA at security. Basically, plan to check all toiletry items. Just seal them up in Ziploc and pack them in your bag. Electronics will also get extra scrutiny, so be prepared to be asked to turn on any device you might carry on with you.

Are we sure this isn't just some publicity stunt for that Oliver Stone picture opening today? Timing seems awfully suspicious.

I hear the studio has a dud on their hands, and could be desperate enough ...

^^ I wish that was a joke- but honest to God that's the kind of tinfoil stuff you would buy into isn't it- *sigh*


But on the topic-

What a mess and how scary.....:(

Link

Yup- I am sure Scotland Yard has nothing better to do than trump up a false terror plot in order to launch a movie.

Please.......

I agree with Nephy. iSm, you are clearly off base and your joke is in poor taste. This has been going on for almost a month. If you look at your timeline, the only rational explanation is that Rove engineered this to bolster Lieberman's new Independent status. Duh.

*snort* :p

(another time someone agreed with me- ah ha!)

The joke police have spoken! It is not appropriate to joke about a non-event with no fatalities.

I personally find iSm's playfully paranoid scenerio to be at least two times more plausible than the idea that we can fight terrorism by invading Iraq. And how is it that there are still terrorists around after the American public passed a referendum against terrorism back in November of 2004?

KROQ/Doc on the ROC was talking about this this morning.

Sorry Steve, while I have no doubt that our government can carry out an event as large as 9/11 I don't think Oliver Stone has that kind of publicity power [anymore].

Oh, and here's a bit of my paranoia that is really no joke: Get ready for Patriot Act III and having big brother watching you take a dump on a regular basis.
Frankly, while I'm glad no planes were blown up ... the truth is NO PLANES WERE BLOWN UP. Accusations of this nature have been made by the U.S. authorities before, people held in solitary confinement for years without charge or access to counsel, but accusations of terrorist plots made by the Justice Department ... then cases dismissed or convictions made only on immigration violations ... with no terrorism charges ever brought.

Please come back and comment after you've reviewed the Declaration of Independence, and be prepared to tell us why our own King George is not a tyrant.

Oy, and I have to fly to Chicago in a couple weeks - hopefully things will settle by then. Oh well maybe the parks will be less crowded again.

:eek: please tell me you are not one of those people who think the gov't made or allowed 9/11 to happen on purpose.

That is just.....beyond.

Wow… A government actually listened to intelligence sources, and was able to stop a major terrorist attack before it happened. What a novel concept. Perhaps the Bush administration needs to take a few lessons from the British….

While I can certainly appreciate your concerns, what does our Dec of Ind have to do with Scotland Yard?

Our Bill of Rights and Constitution have no bearing elsewhere. I am certainly no expert on the governing documents of other nations, but there is no Bill or Rights elsewhere.

What are the limitations that apply to Scotland Yard (or other non-US investigative agencies)?

I'm not trying to be rhetorical - I really have no clue what surveillance guidelines Scotland Yard (or any non US agency) must adhere to.

Made it happen? No.
Let it happen? Obviously! It’s only whether or not it was intentional, or through shear incompetence, that is still in question.

Neph ... Please take a chill pill, consult with an actual person on a reality check, imagine you have a sense of humor ... and stop taking jokes as if they are actual serious opinions.

Both are being expressed thus far in this thread. Learn to tell the difference.



Learn fast.

I'm losing patience.

I'll concede that incompetence, and not conspiracy, is the leader in the clubhouse.

While I am tempted to take the bait, I will suffice it to say that there are many ways to spin this. I would argue that should this have happened at JFK, the left would be out talking about why it had to come down to the last minute and that the Bush admin was too slow to act, and thereby creaed a nightmare situation for travellers.

I could just as easily spin this by saying that the Bush administration must be doing an outstanding job because the terrorists are not able embark upon such an attack here in the US.

It is sad that foiling a terrorist attack has to lead to partisan attacks. I'll just take it as a victory that the attack was stopped, congratulate the British and the intelligence services, and leave it at that.

-the sound..of silence.......

ahhh...nice :)

STOP NOW.

Another thread should not be taken down this path. I realize I am not the play nice police, and I really don't care who started what or who misinterpretted what, just stop.

will do Leo-

Clarify for me- the missing students here in the US- they have arrested some and are looking for others but they say they are not a terrorist threat- then why the big to do?


Link

They aren't a known threat. However, at least one of the hijackers on 9/11 entered on a student visa and never showed up for the classes he was allegedly taking. Since then, the US govt. has apparently tried to seal up this gap in security but keeping better track of where student visa entrants go after entering.

Since a large group did just that, they are making sure that these students don't just disappear.

That's my interpretation, anyway.


I'm glad this latest attack was apparently foiled, and thank British Intelligence for their work. I hope no innocent people end up being caught in the dragnet.

Those who have replied have said what I wanted to say.

I guess the Brits got the timing wrong for the "October Surprise". Oops.

Yipes! Way to go London.

How come Georgie is always on vacation when something urgent happens?

Blair is currently on vacation as well, as I understand it.

I think there is a bit of added urgency with the group of Egyptians because Al Qaida just recently announced a new Egyptian chapter...or so I read somewhere and can't find a link to it now.

While it is encouraging that it is even known that these Egypitans are missing, I am certain they are a small drop in the bucket of aliens with unknown whereabouts or expired visas. I suppose next time they can just come across the US-Mexico border to avoid such problems.

I'm trying to keep my cynicism in check, I really am. Still, events such as these seem to come at such a time when they are the most needed by an administration struggling to repair credibility and retain power. I have this vision of Karl Rove high-fiving the president at some point.

I fully admit that my cynicism comes from a complete lack of trust in our leadership.

How does this make any difference here?

I've never understood the August vacations to Texas. I'll bet George sometimes wishes he was a pretend mountain man or some such manly endeavor with milder climes.

My mom is in Canada and is scheduled to return early next week. I am terrified. :(

I'm not saying that this isn't a significant event or that I'm not grateful to british intelligence for thwarting these plans of attack. I do, however, note a noticable difference in tone from what the british officials are saying about this event and how it is being portrayed by their American counterparts. This will be spun to gain every political advantage possible by this administration, which most times, seems far more important to them than actually doing anything to make us safer.

I'm far more interested in what the british have to say about this and will stick with the BBC, rather than hear the story from people like Michael Chertoff and George Bush, who aren't as interested in the facts as they are in working those facts into something that they can use.

Why, exactly, are you terrified? Terrified that she'll have to stand in a really long line? Nothing's happened. The major people involved have been arrested. And, based on the information we've been given, they know what to look for and they're going overboard in ensuring that nothing of the sort is going to get through. It's probably the safest time for her to be flying.

I'm glad the Brits found out about this plot and stopped it. I think that's great.

However, I'll be damned before I take some cue from the media or our government that I am supposed to be afraid right now. I'm tired of fear being used to control people. (Bush just said [per CNN] that we could be attacked and we're not in the clear. Yeah, that's filling me with courage...) I'm going to be flying on Sept 11th. I''m not scared. I'm not scared of terrorists like I'm supposed to be. I'm not going to sit like a coward and fear another attack. Last I checked, we Americans are supposed to be brave. I am.
:)

No, not the lines, or the fact that she may get herself arrested for arguing when she can't bring a carry on bag (I'll just laugh at her if she does).

Just scared anyways.

What should be said, then?

We are in the clear and terrorists don't want to attack us anymore? Or nothing at all? It's realism. We could be attacked. To say we are not at risk would be disingenuous and criticized (and rightly so) as ostrich like. To not talk about it while terrorism and terrorist attacks are perhaps the largest issue in he world at present would be criticized (and rightly so) as, well, ostrich like again.

I suppose he could come out and say we are at risk but not to be afraid because your government is doing their best to protect you, but that would called electioneering.

The purpose of terrorism is to have exactly this effect. That is how the terrorists win, when we are so afraid that we are willing to alter all that is good about America to make it "safer", while giving up what makes us "free".

We cannot defeat terrorism. It is a tactic that will be used so long as it has its desired effect. And the effect that it has had today only reenforces that it can be successful even when a specific plot has been disrupted. It will be used again and again and no amount of "spreading freedom" in Iraq will lessen it. It will only stop being used when it no longer works. When we say a collective "fvck you" to the terrorists and refuse to change our lives regardless of their threats.

I would say that even though this attempt was thwarted, it is still a victory for the terrorists. They have once again brought our airports to a standstill and spread fear throughout the citizens.

I won't live in fear- ever- not of these things. Life continues....and it is good.

I flew in October 2001- other people canceled flights- I took my kids to Disneyland.

You know, one should probably be more afraid of being hit by a car than of a terrorist attack.

I heard no news this morning until I opened this board. Thank you (most of you) all for bringing me quickly up to date on what's going on in the world. I have half a mind to remove all of the BS posts to another thread so they can fight amongst themselves. But, alas, that would take work and I'm just not up for it today.

Maybe the Park will be less crowded and the price of flights will plumit. There are a lot of place I want to visit and I'm not afraid to travel.

How about Bush saying this:
"Our British allies have foiled a terrorist plot. We applaud them in their efforts in the war on terror. Be assured that the same diligence used by our British counterparts is shared by us in this country. We will continue to protect our citizens here and abroad."

Not:
"The same thing could happen to us, folks. Be afraid. Be very afraid."

That's capitalizing on this situation to strike fear here in our country. That's how he won the last election, that's how he leads. I disagree with that. If you can't get a country to buy what you're selling without scaring them to death, then you don't know how to lead.

Exactly.

However, we can defeat organizations of terrorism. Hamas, Hezbollah, Al qaida....they may never go away, but we can hit their funding, and their ability to organize.

I don't think the goal of Islamic terrorists is to make us change our lifestyle. I think their goal is to kill us and to force us to make policy decisions they want (such as no longer supporting Israel or whatever) by convincing us that should we just make this change or evacuate this parcel of land that they will stop. They won't stop.

Of course, their ultimate goal is to make us change our lifestyle by forced conversion to Islam and abandonment of western culture.

Now, wouldn't that be nice?


Well, we all have goals. I don't feel the need to punish others for their goals. I just don't have to buy into them. That gets to be my choice.

I will absolutely gaurantee you that should he have said this the criticism would be Bush is promising to protect us when there is no way every attack can be stopped, as is evidenced by the daily bombings in Iraq. Another no win situation where the words can be spun however political opponents wish to. Saying "we aren't safe from terrorist attacks yet" is reality, not fear mongering.

On a side note, this info came from Pakistani intelligence. I found that to be interesting as I've never really been quite sure if they were someone that wished to allign themselves against radical Islamic terrorists.

When their goal is spread by killing those who won't subscribe to their goal, then they are attempting to remove that choice from you. "Punishment" as you put it, "fighting back" as I would state it, is then necessary.

I think the risk of flying is the same as it was yesterday, or last week, or last year. Any of this stuff could happen anytime. Just because they found out about this plot doesn't mean there aren't others. I'm not going to change anything I'm doing because of this.

You know what? I really do like you people, disagreements and all. I'm a' learnin'!

word

Couldn't this be the way that Iraqi's view our actions in their country?

We knew what was best for them, plunged their entire country into chaos while trying to acheive our goals, and now we are surprised that they are fighting back.

Exactly. If we insist on fighting, we're going to get a fight. Things will continue esclating and we have a certain amount of control over that.

wow-

you actually think you can compare the two?

You think we are there telling them to convert or die?

I'm sorry, but I am just agog at such "logic"- how in the world can you see the two as the same in any way?

Not only that- but to acheive such a view you have to ignore the fact that alot of the insugency in Iraq is being fed in from other countries, it is not the Iraqis rising up en masse against us. It is also in-fighting that was there long before we did anything-

I have no doubt that some do. I would suspect the foreign nationals that have come to Iraq to fight against the US might think the same thing. I also believe that huge numbers of Iraqis are grateful we are there. I also beliee that Iraqis want the foreign nationals out of their country more than they want the US out.

To respond to NA, last time I checked there was massive escalation before we did anything in Iraq, with he exception of expelling them from Kuwait, of course. Do I really need to list all of the attacks against American targets that took place prior to the invasion?

It will escalate on their side no matter what our side does. So the choices are to fight back, give in tto their demands, or accept their continuing escalation without reprisal.

Here's one question: if all of the 9/11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia and all of the conspirators arrested today are from Pakistan, why do we wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

(and for the record, I get the Afghanistan part, but I figure it'd make a better discussion)

And to acheieve THAT view, you have to ignore the fact that while that was the line we were being fed at the beginning of the insurgency, the leaders on the ground in Iraq have since said, several times, that the level of foreign fighters was highly over stated and that most of the insurgency is indeed being fueled from within.

I think that's where I find the most disconnect between people of "whatever camp you want to call it". I can't buy into the whole "they started it" thing, because - it doesn't matter. What matter is how we respond. It's like one very serious playground fight between a couple of bully's, only there is not principal in this situation. I have a really hard time defending what actions we have taken. Maybe I'm bing too optomistic and simplistic to think that it is possible to "take the high road" but, we're getting targeted because we got involved. It has escalated to the point where we are the primary enemy and target. Have we really done anyone any good here? We certainly have no done much good for ourselves.

I'm not sure that the massive demonstration that occurred last weekend with over 100,000 Iraqis chanting "death to america" would support this. I never hear the Iraqis state "we want the foreign nationals out", rather I hear them say "we want the americans out". You are free to believe what you want but I have seen little evidence to back that assertion up. Iraq is becoming a theocracy and the opportunity for any real democracy is long gone. They understand this. We, however, haven't quite caught up.

Are you an isolationist, then, NA? I don't know how to not get "involved".

If you makes you feel more comfortable to put an overarching label on me, then go for it. I just may not agree with all of the principals of "isolationism" all of the time. ;)

All the more reason why the idea of spreading democracy in Iraq was an impossibility from the start. These people never had any intention of living together peacefully. Why on earth did we think we could change that?

Quite a protest, to be sure. Is this in response to day to day operations in Iraq or the Israel/Hezbollah situation? Perhaps both. Iraqis, I'm sure, have no more love for Israel than most other Arab nations.

It was an honest question, not meant to be rhetorical. I know isolationists. I, obviously, am not one.

If we don't get involved in Iraq invading Kuwait, Saddam next goes into Saudi Arabia. If we don't get involved in Afghanistan, the Taliban coninues to offer safe haven to all of Al Qaida. If we don't get involved in Bosnia, ethnic cleansing turns into genocide. If we don't get invol.....you get the idea.

Staying too far removed from the situation has never been beneficial. Usually the situation grows until it can no longer be ignored.

What I heard on the TV news this morning is that all arrested today are UK citizens, but of Pakistani descent. They are "home grown," just like those who bombed the subways last July.

I kind of thought the idea was to oust Saddam.

A large majority of Iraq (speaking in terms of geography, not populace...I have no idea how much of the populace lives in the peaceful areas) is now peaceful and functioning. Baghdad certainly not.

Perhaps? Every poll taken has shown that more than two-thirds of all Iraqi's want us gone. Remove the Kurds from the poll and the number rises to over 80%. Even our military commanders have backed this up.

That isn't how it was sold. And besides, at what expense? Is it better to have a theocracy that still hates America just as much, and a new breeding ground for terrorists, in place of a dictator that kept Iraq from descending into Civil War?

I wonder what the new status quo will be. I suppose I should be more concerned with global affairs, but I'm selfishly thinking about me.

I know today is a day of flux and various officials and experts make recommnedations and predictions that may or may not become reality and that making plans based on today's guidelines is a foolish endeavor.

Still, I wonder. I didn't think my mascara would every be a bit of dangerous contraband. Will the no liquid rule persist? My guess is yes. My understanding is that the liquid bomb requires a liquid something or other, a powdered explosive, and an ignition source. (This is probably too simplistic and represents only what info I was able to glean from scanning the stories this morning.) Prohibiting the ignition source would mean prohibiting all battery-operated items - phones, laptops, wristwatches, iPods, et.... Prohibiting the powdered items would be extremely difficult as I understand it - effectively prohibiting all carry-on items. Therefore, the easiest item to prohibit is liquids.

But will it go further? Will we all go to the airport in the future with our passports and valium in ziploc baggies?

And that can have a serious impact on the travel industry. Airlines lose luggage all the damn time - and now I have to pack my favorite lipstick in checked luggage? I realize this is a minor inconvenience in the whole scheme of being blown up and sprinkled over some metropolitan area, but the travel "rules" have always been to check as little as possible. Heck, some airlines have started (Ryanair) or were planning to start (I swear I read this somewhere) charging to check luggage. If I have to check everything, luggage delivery is unreliable, I can't bring bottled water on the plane, airlines only serve for sale food/beverage for a significant markup, and I have to sit on a six-hour flight with no book, magazine, or anything, then I'm thinking I won't be flying any more. And heck - why just planes? They haven't before, but I keep wondering when these measures will extend to other forms of transportation - trains, buses, boats.

Now, like I said, this is all selfish thinking. And I'm sure y'all can think of any number of erroneous presumptions I've just made, and criticize my gall in thinking of my own comfort.

But I do think of my own comfort. And I'm not the only one. So, like 9/11, the impact isn't just a 5-hour security line today, it's me deciding to stop planning that vacation 18 months away because the combo of fear and inconvenience is just too much and I'd rather plan something closer to home. I can't be the only one thinking that.

And that's a potentially significant economic impact.

So, it's basically win-win for the terrorists. Either we do what they say and they win, or our economy takes one hit after another, and they win.

Would you consider Switzerland isolationist? I like Switzerland.

I try and look at world situation in the same way I look at the choices I make in life. MOST of the time, I'm better off if I don't get involved. That certainly doesn't mean I always take my own advice, but usually, in retrospect, I would be better off to leave myself out of situations. It's an ego thing. Sure, it makes me feel better when I can pull my weight and have opinions, tell people off and puff myself up, but who does it really help?

????????????????

It is completely how it was sold. To get rid of a madman with WMD.

I wasn't suggesting that the majority of Iraqis at this point do no want us out. I was simply saying that the timing would seem to indicate that the Israeli situaiton was coming into play as well, particularly with the Iraqi PM being very vocally critical of Israel.

What Prudence said.

Also what about the water or Starbucks that I buy inside the "security zone". Can I take that on with me?

According to this morning's paper - no. Won't that make runway delays even more fun? you know, the ones where you sit on the tarmac for hours and the airline won't even distribute water and people survive on what they brought themselves?

The new/proposed restrictions wouldn't be so bad if we weren't also at a barebones service model. Not that my comfort should trump security, but if airlines won't provide any comfort, and I will no longer be able to bring my own, I may not fly any more.

I've been thinking.....

I don't think the terrorists sit and laugh over added security precautions. I really don't. What happened is their plot, which took at least several months to plan and a lot (alot, for MBC) of financial resources, was stopped. No planes exploded. No death. No carnage. No martyrdom. No success in the eyes of Allah. It was failure. It shows them that well thought out and immensely destructive plots may not be possible anymore.

If there was no financial cost to them, and if these were quick and easy o plan, I might think otherwise. But they are not cheap. They are not quick and easy to plan. They just wasted months and finances for nothing.

They aren't sitting and laughing at added security measures. I don't see this as really damaging to the airline industry - nowhere near so much as if the plot had been successful. So rather than laughing, they are cursing that they failed.

According to the report I watched on KTLA this morning, yes.

While on the subject of terrorism and Israel and all such related topics, there is a concern about Aug 22.

Augt 22 his year corresponds to a specific date on the Islamic calendar when Mohammad flew on a horse "first to the farthest mosque" and then to heaven. The "farthest mosque" is interpreted as a reference to Jerusalem.

I did a little poking around and found that the Koran describes this event as "lighting up the skies of Jerusalem."

A historian named Bernard Lewis wrote a piece in the Wall St Journal about this, and there are some experts that wonder if Iran is plotting a major attack on Aug 22, as the Iranian President has been talking extraordinarily tough lately and the ties of Iran to Hezbollah are well known. Some even theorize it could be nuclear, though I doubt that he would also nuke holy Islamic sites as well. But who knows.

I sort of figured they'd either have to or shut all those places down. Otherwise they'll have to re-screen you before boarding. Which makes no sense.

You are half-correct. WMD's and bringing democracy to Iraq is how it was sold. In other words, it was sold with a fear of terrorism from the evil conniving Saddam and as a way to establish the first real democracy in the middle east, thereby halting the spread of terrorism. Those are the reasons that I remember.

Unfortunately, 6 years later, we still have found no WMD's and we still haven't brought democracy to Iraq. Meanwhile, terrorism, the thing that made all of this worth it, is on the rise. Plots are still being hatched against the US. The borders aren't secure. Hell, a hurricane caught us with our pants down around our ankles as far as disaster management. Oh, and the guy that masterminded that attack on 9/11 that changed everything? We still haven't a clue where he is.

And the problem is, that the minute we started this gun ho war against terrorism, all we have to show for it is more terrorists, a country on the verge of a civil war, and continued terrorist plots against us. There are plenty of things that we can do to reduce incidents of terrorism without giving up our civil liberties and our hair products. As long as we are engaged in a losing battle with Iraq though, I don't see it happening any time soon.

Whenever I say that bringing democracy was a major reason everyone here tells me it was all about WMD. What it was about was WMD and repeated cease fire violations. I will be he first to admit that bringing democracy to the region was an almost immediate afterthought.

This is not what they're saying up here:

source

There's a very simple solution for this water problem, really. How much does a case of water cost at Costco? I was there Saturday buying some and it was $5 for a case of 32 16oz water bottles. That's about $20 to give a full plane a bottle of water as they board.

So are they going to re-screen you before you get on the plane? What if you take some kind of liquid perscription medication? These are the things I sit around and wonder about.

Prescriptions can be carried on provided they are in their original containers. Although I don't know how they're going to manage that, because short of using it how do you prove that the labelled bottled contains the listed prescription?

Better source for confirming that beverages purchased inside the security zone will not be permitted on board:

From the TSA website --

I looked on TSA but apparently not in the right place. Thanks for the info.

Not Isolationist as much as a remote non-player

They had no problem melting down Ann franks charm braclet and banking it to keep the peace... of course I'm speaking figuratively, although they were permitted to maintain "nutrality" don't hold to it too romanticaly they were most certainly Germanys Bitches.

:snap: :snap:

Well it changes every 20 minutes. Latest word is that they WILL be doing double screening starting tomorrow - once at the xray and once at the gate.

I don't know why they're acting like people are such idiots. ZOMG! This woman didn't throw out her lipstick! She's holding up the whole line! I don't think of my lipstick as liquid or gel. Same with toothpaste. Yes, it would be ideal if everyone were on the same page. It would also be helpful if "they" - port authority, TSA, airlines, whomever - made it clear what "they" are considering liquids/gels. Deoderant? Sure. Shampoo? Sure. Sunscreen? Absolutely. Mascara? I'll buy that, even. Powder eye shadow or face powder? How is that a liquid or gel? Why is the local news acting like people are complete morons for not knowing this?

At some point keeping me "safe" will become so inconvenient for me that I'll no longer travel.

I'm not looking forward to my international flight in two weeks time....

:(

Not that I want to get into a huge debate, but this is simply too broad a statement to make without qualifiers. Is that the picture the media is painting? Abso-fukin-lutely. Do we trust the mass-media? Uhh, we shouldn't. Their accounts of the story, with death toll scoreboard that light up more than broadway on gay-night, are hardly objective honest views of the reality. I like to temper it with accounts from actual soldiers living and breathing life over there, as well as accounts from actual Iraqi's.

I'm not saying we are "winning" or "loosing"...not sure it would even be possible to define either. I think its just difficult to say either way. Especially from way over here. In DL....with WiFi. And A/C. MMM A/C. And great tacos....and delicious boobies. God I love SoCal. All the fast beautiful cars...and women....wait...what was I talking about?

Ah yes....tacos and boobies. Yumm...

Can we actually blame the media for Iraq? I don't think so. They may do crappy things like a death count, but Bush owns how badly Iraq is going. But we're not supposed to be focused on Iraq right now... we're supposed to be distracted by Mel Gibson, Lebannon and this new story today... but that, too, could be the media's fault...

It is within the nature of the media to dwell on the negative. There is nothing news worthy about planes that don't crash. There is nothing exciting about our relationship with Japan. Most of the time, what's reported is what is going wrong.

Everything is not going wrong in Iraq. Where the media is focused - there it is not going well at all, to be honest. Baghdad is a mess. But look at the north. 200,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam, and that region is doing so well that they refer to themselves as Kurdistan and are even trying to promote tourism. Of the 14 provinces, 11 are doing quite well. Three are a mess.

The media will focus on what they find to be interesting at the time. They love dirty laundry. Mel Gibson was dirty laundry.

Lipstick ? Face powder ?

...Next they'll be draining the saline / gel out of breast implants. You can get heaps of liquid on the plane that way......

Afghanastan is still a giant clusterfvck. The taliban is still a huge part of that country if you go outside the city. But we don't hear about that anymore.

Why not?

You know what I'm seeing more and more often? Bush or Rumsfeld paint some rosey picture of what's going on in Iraq, and then a couple days later, a general on the ground there sweating under the collar and choosing their words very carefully so they don't actually say, "Ummm, yyyeah, our commander in chief is full of crap." You're right, it is nice to temper the administrations bs with the reality from those that are actually there making the decissions.

Ya, me too. Totally different picture that is painted for you then the one you see in the media or in a public forum. And different in this case does not mean better.

Support our troops. Bring them home!

What intrigues me is this current batch are home gown - what soured them in thier life in England experience. Thier parent probably fled the oppression they seem to want. Do they feel disconnected from their heritage and are using this to reconnect? Is there no Punk or Gangsta Rap for them to lash out in a counter culture that doesn't involve mass murder? Or are they so disaffected by their lives there that they no longer care?

tangentially - I keep finding the words " Our Precious Fluids" running through my head.

Clearly not...and no one suggested that. Certainly not I. What you can blame them for is the sensationalization of it all and the misrepresentation of reality.

Ok so I know this is an overwhelmingly liberally-biased message board, so anything that is said that could possibly be deemed as supportive of what is seen as an evil republican regime will be struck down with furious anger, but I'll play for a post or two anyway.

Even if the administration is trying to paint a rosey picture over there, and I can't say that I have exactly seen that, the American people would never know about it because the media would not allow that slant. It didn't sell newspapers during Vietnam...and it still doesn't now. I'm sure the administration is trying to spin their successes and minimize their failures. Duh. And that PR BS game should be ignored. The issue I raised is that the media decided for the American people that this is a quagmire and a failure before it even began...and that is how it has been spun. A soliders or regiments succeses are never shown on TV today. Schools that are built, hospitals that are opened, ie...positive news...is never broadcasted. Again, this is not to say that this operation is a failure or a success, but if the tide was shifting, the media certainly would never let us know.

Unfortunately, that sort of mentality is rather silly, overly simplistic, and untimately short-sighted. I don't think I need to get into the reasons as to why. Wether or not you agree with the actions taken, and 99% of those on this board disagree...you can't just abandon those people.

Eh, the midlands sucks. It's boring as hell. And their food....yuck. No worries...indeed.

NirvanaMan, I am currently unable to mojo you, but that post was certainly mojo worthy.

Well, sit down, because I agree with you. But we need an exit strategy and we need to get out. We aren't fixing anything, we aren't accomplishing anything other than killing and getting our own people killed. This *war* is endless. We came for the WMDs, there wern't any. We came to get Saddam out, we did that. We came to promote democracy, we're trying and failing. At some point, we need to just say ok, here is what we are going to do, and then we are going to have to leave.

We're ending up with a new generation of shell-shocked troops. In 20-30 years how many of these men and women will be the homeless vets we see on the corner, lives shattered because we jumped into something we had no way to get out of.

I am not ready to say we are failing at setting up democracy.

They have a constitution. The have had a national election with tremendous turnout.

This is what I find to be a bit amsuing. Many say we are trying to export "our form" of "western democracy" and are critical of that. Well, they've voted, and it certainly isn't going to be a western style democracy, so this is seen as failure.

I'm not remotely afraid. I was fightened with the inital attacks, then that ceased when I realised I was supposed to react that way- that's what they want and that's why they are called 'Terrorists'. I am not so stupid as to think my government would not use that fear to their advantage- historically, fear has been a great manipulator of civilizations and I see no reason to doubt that the powers that want to remain so would not hesitate to use this fear to their advantage. I would suspect the same of any party- it's human nature, and doesn't devolve along party lines. People in power are always seeking more, and any way they can. That's why we (supposedly) have a system of checks and balances.

Oh, and I owe you mojo, GC. :cool:

Well, we have to be a litte saavy about the media's spin, too.

It's come 360, btw. Contrary to NirvanaMan's picture of a consistently anti-IraqWar press ... the media were so anachronistically gung-ho, patriotic and Up-Bush's-A$$ for the first year or so of the conflict that I had to keep checking my watch to see what decade I was in.

Sure, now the mainstream press is calling it a quagmire, a civil war, a bloodbath. But at least there are reports of facts in there, upon which we can form some sort of informed conception. I'm not saying things aren't denied us or spun by the American media ... people who watch Al Jazeera probably get a wider view of things.

But bare facts are bare facts ... and if we are to believe the intregrity of reports from many sources that, for instance, 100-people-per-day have been dying violently in Baghdad for months now, I think we can paint our own picture of that part of Iraq - quite apart from either the media spin or the politico spin.

The uptick in violence in Baghdad coincided with our launch of a major military campaign to return order and security to that city. I don't need any spin to see, from the simple facts on the ground, that this campaign is a dismal failure, in a line of many dismal failures.

Last week began the trial of the soldiers who raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and then killed her and her family. We destroy entire cities like Fallujah, and the enemy simply melts away to regroup somewhere else. Then we utterly destroy the next town, while the enemy keeps surviving and eluding and regrouping elsewhere.

We can't be everywhere at once.

We can't defeat a guerilla insurgency with American military might.

We can't even quell an ongoing bloodbath in our occupied nation's capital ... with all the treasury-draining resources of the United States Armed Forces brought to bear.


I really don't need to hear opinions or spin one way or the other to see what's going on. This is really beyond all spin.

What about breast milk? That would be awkward..."Would you mind drinking that liquid before you cart it onto the plane, ma'am?" :p

People had to do it after 9/11.

I remember hearing about that happening once.

And here I thought breast milk came in the most secure containers of all.

Heaven forbid we feed a baby breast milk from a BREAST!

Breast milk in a bottle is what I am talking about. If they are going to prevent nursing mothers from nursing because of the "liquid" we will have bigger issues.

Lol, at first I had images of having to show off my secret "skill." :eek: :p

I don't it's secret anymore... :p


Can you imagine? Any woman with a chest would be subject to search.

Well I had thought about posting it in the idiosynchrasies thread....


Security guards everywhere are beginning to tingle.

Dear Boss:

I hereby resign from Jaguar Cars. I have decided to pursue a career with the TSA in airport security. I feel that I am singularly qualified for this duty and have been chosen by a higher power to pursue this great purpose. Thank you for a good 6 years. I have learned a great deal in my time here.

I will remain for two weeks to wrap up current projects and assist with the transfer of my budget and duties.

Yours Truly.

Erik

Wha, wha, get over yourself.

I responded to your call for "tempering" from the people who are there. Everything I've seen from the people who are there paint a far worse picture than the administration is spewing. And, more to the point, paint a picture that matches up almost blow-for-blow with what the pre-war intelligence said would happen - sectarian violence, ecalating towards full scale civil war, aided by foreing insurgency. This isn't what the Congressional detractors said, it's what Bush's military advisors predicted, and they were dead on right.

So yeah, I'm pretty okay with the media pointing that reality out, because all I can hope is that one of these days we'll learn from the fact that this make 6 for 6 over the past century or so where a US lead regime change, not instigated by local revolution, results in even bloodier civil war.

Why am I not surprised at all by this post?

Interviewer (or your boss) But Erik, it's any woman with a chest. Are you able to be non-discriminatory when preforming searches?

Wow! That seems uncalled for! In addition to not making sense. Get over myself? Huh? Where exactly in my post was I proclaiming my greatness?:rolleyes: I was simply asserting what I believed to be obvious, but you are free to refute it.

That aside, it seems clear that our eyes and ears on the scene seem to have terribly different views of the same situation. Since none of us are there, I suppose it is difficult for any of us to say for sure what is going on, but I still have to believe accounts relayed to me from those on the scene that are angry with our media's lack of recognition for their successes and misportrayal of the actuality of the events. And I suppose yours would be happy with the medias portrayal and consider it to be good work. There are no successes. All is failure.

Again, we're not there, so we don't know. Oh well. So, its clearly not ok for the administration to spew their BS spin, without some sort of checks and balances. Fine. I agree. But it's ok for the media to spew their BS without any checks, so long as you happen to agree with their viewpoint? Hmmm, I can't say I agree with that philosophy.

:decap: That smiley is freakin awesome.

So I was just about to shut down when I heard (on nbc) that the airlines are charging passengers whose bags are over the weight limit due to packing their carry on stuff. Now that is fvcked up.

Can't we all just get along and meet somewhere in the middle with the common ground of boobies, tacos and all things shiny?

Yes, can you live up to the level of professional dedication shown by Ed Norton in this photograph?

This is why I laugh when it's suggested that airlines could provide bottled water on board. They're in such deep financial water that they'll charge for anything. Heck, this is the perfect time to go ahead with their plans to charge to check any bags at all.

I'm still waiting for the day we all fly naked after a full cavity search.

What about spontaneous human combustion? - once the terrorists master that, we shall never fly again

As I'm too fried right now to dig up a cite, I'll just put this out there anecdotally and you can take it for what it's worth. :)

I read an interesting interview with a CNN reporter who was in Baghdad, don't remember which one. He/she made the point that, many times, they are forbidden by the military to report good news. The reason given was that the military was afraid that if they reported that a particular sector was doing well, it would be targetted next. The reported stated that there is good news but that they are not allowed to report it.

I find that plausable and also think it sheds some light on the argument made by many on the right that the media is failing to report good news.

And I don't deny that there have been good things that have happened in Iraq. Sadly, I think those days are over though. I listened to military commander after military commander the other day state that a full blown civil war is a real possibility in the near future. That isn't media spin. That is what the people that are there are reporting. And right now, I trust what General Peter Pace says just a tad more than Rummy telling us that things are going great.

Three huge areas are a mess.

I see what you're saying. But let's say a positive story about the Kurds comes out. It will last for a day on the CNN.com website and disappear. Why? Often it's more to do with the number of hits and the responses they get from people reading what they post, not what they are offering us to read. The media hits on certain aspects because that's where people's interests are. People like to hear about trainwrecks and read about them. Iraq is a trainwreck.

Example: On another site that focuses on Disney. One article got a lot of feedback (on the linked Discussion Board) regarding a gossip piece about Lindsay Lohan. Another article talking about picturesque parts of Disneyland Paris got little interest. The Lohan piece got more views and hits than many of the other articles on the site. So, should that site post more gossip about Lohan-types on their site? That's up to them, but if they wanted to maintain the hits they got from Lohan, they might. It's not that they don't want us to hear about Disneyland Paris, they do, but people want to read about Lohan.
I think the people on this board, left or right, are very open to hear most everything people post. You're saying this board is close minded while labelling people on this board liberal, anti-Republican and angry.
Huh?

If you want actual accounts from someone there, then here's one: My sister dated someone who was stationed in Iraq. She's been there for a couple of years now. She said morale is low, most of the soldiers she comes into contact with think they are there for the wrong reasons, she's heard about our soldiers killing civillians for fun and for several months she was guarding a palace that has been converted into a club for military officers. There's an account for you.

Interesting, and it makes sense.

Wow - that could be the first time I have ever uttered such words about a post from MBC.:)

Goes with my dirty laundry comment. Good news isn't interesting.

I think I'd pay the dollar for a bottle of water. I think most people would. If they can buy it for $5/case, sell the 32 bottles for $32, that's a nice profit.

And pretty much every flight includes beverage service in flight already, so I don't really find it to be that unrealistic.

Totally. I mean, look at this site. Which thread got the most hits lately? The NA/Nephy love thread or Snowflake's new job thread? Uh, the NA/Nephy thread. People love to watch unrest, people fighting, etc.
Look at reality TV, people like to see controversy, people upset, people crying, people yelling. Yikes.

And getting back to the topic, I was so conflicted this morning. Romney got a lot of kudos for stepping up to the plate, going on the air and telling MA that the National Guard has been called on to protect the state. He even beat Bush to the airwaves. One one hand, I think that's great good for him. On the other hand, I'm thinking he's doing this to pimp himself as a Presidential Candidate for '08 and he's trying to get the Big Dig mess off the front page of the newspaper.

I'm skeptical about all this, too, in a way.

Cheney talked about Lieberman's loss the day before this story broke about the foiled plot. He said Lieberman's loss would encourage al-Qaeda types.

Source

This was the day before details of the plot were uncovered. I guarantee you he already knew about the foiled plot and still said what he said. I think that Cheney is clearly using this event for political purposes as we near the Nov elections.

And might I add that Bush is still on vacation. Yes, he can work from his farm. But it shows his country that he is concerned about this if he actually picked up and went back to DC.

Well, part of that on this board is that good news isn't controversial nor worthy of discussion. It is great that Snowflake got a new job, but how much discussion is going to happen about it?

Snowflake: I got a new job
GC: Congrats!
SCA: What? Why the hell did you need a new job? What was wrong with the old one? Were you too lazy to do it right?
MBC: Why are you calling her lazy?
Snowflake: Sob! I'm not lazy
Alex: The exact definition of lazy may not perhaps be applicable here
SzczM: Did you quit because you are gay and there was discrimination?
Snowflake: SOB!

Ummm....no. Congrats to Snowflake, certainly (spoken as someone who is three days away from a new job himself), but once the congratulations are issued, there's just not that much more to say.

I just realised you can combine it with heads too !

:rolleyes:
:decap:


...sory, I'm a bit slow...

That's my point about the Kurds. Their welfare isn't controversial and, to some, not worthy of discussion. It's great that the Kurds are pimping tourism, but how much discussion is going to happen about it?


And I'm glad Snowflake got a new job. I was just using her thread as an example... :)

How glib would war supporters be if "only" New York, Los Angeles, and Washington DC were burning? Would they complain about the dearth of feel-good stories about tourism worthy Nebraska?

I suppose it depends, Sac. If the news reports were saying that all of the United States is in flames and there is no hope for the country, I might offer that, no, the entire US is not in flames and while it is tragic and we hope and pray for the best, and we want to help in whatever we can, in Nebraska the wheat harvest went on as scheduled.

This does not belittle tragic events. It simply points out that the entire country is not in flames.

Iraq is much smaller. It would be California with LA, SF and Sacramento in flames with people blowing themselves and others up on and near the LAX, Amtrak stations, Bart and Metro... Would the news media say that California was screwed? Yes.

Something tells me that if that were the case there would be a lot less sentiment trying to understand the people that were doing it, and there would be fewer cries to give up and leave CA on their own.

Have to argue against that one, Scaeagles. All California has to do is pass an eco-friendly or pro-human rights law and the rest of the country wants to disown them. California is the progressive thorn in America's side, and I suspect that if there were an insurgency of some sort the rest of the country would at least consider putting them on ignore.;)

As far as sentimentally trying to understand the insurgent- I don't think there are many that want to link arms with them and sing 'Kumbaya', but sometimes in order to effect a cure it makes sense to discover the cause.

If the government that bombed CA (in the middle of the night killing women and children in Sacramento) said that they had weapons of mass destruction and then found out there weren't any, people might be interested to get to the bottom of everything.

Also, if the strategy was suddenly changed to say that the gov't was liberating CA from the oppressive Swarzeneggar, then people would say, 'Well, what happened to Arnold's WMDs? Wasn't that the point of the war?' When there wasn't WMD, which many people knew there wasn't, then people world wide would question the government that seemed to be attacking CA for other reasons.

Eyebrows may also be raised if LA, SF and Sacto were still burning and the leader of the attacking government came out and said, 'All done. Nothing to see here. War's over.' Many would go, 'Uh, my loved ones are still fighting and dying in Inglewood and in Downtown SF... The war's over?'

Then years later, the war still continues with Northern Californians and SoCal residents possibly getting into a civil war over this... People in other countries might say, well they should leave them to sort this out because with that other gov't's help, things don't seem to be getting any better...

But, but, but... Barstow is doing quite well. Why don't the news media focus more on Barstow?

Hey! Careful with those bombs, pal.

We've been over that, MBC....no need to focus on Barstow, but it might be best to point out that Barstow, Redding, and Eureka are not burning. I recognize the bad news is what is reported thing, which is really what it should be. When we get to the point that what is good happens to be unique and the most newsworthy, we are in deep caca.

Also, if it's not too much to ask, I'd like to request that there be no bombs dropped on the Emerald Triangle. Thank you.

Indeed. We try to learn as much as we can about serial killers, not because we want to invite them to dinner, but because with more knowledge and understanding, maybe we can reduce the risk and save someone's life.

A better understanding of the enemy is never a bad thing, no matter how many conservatives try to paint it as some forgiving gesture.

Yeah, there'd be news about Barstow, but who cares about Barstow? :D

And then people might say, 'Well this government is bombing California because they were bombed by Arizona by people who actually came from Texas. Why don't they investigate Texas more?' And the rest of the world would say, 'It's because of their oil, stupid.' And meanwhile, Arizona's terrorist leader, Janet Napolitano, has still not been found... but we think she's in Carlsbad Caverns somewhere...
:D

Except for the 500 or so older shells that were found that were supposedly destroyed....

We can play the hypothetical CA scenario all day, and all we do is end up rehashing the same arguments over and over with Sacramento and CA substituted for Baghdad and Iraq.

Yet still not the smoking gun that would justify killing thousands of California civillians.
Doy, that's the point. The media wants to show us what's going on in LA, SF and Sacto not show us the newest ride opening at Disneyland...

I don't see it as a forgiving....I think we have a pretty good understanding of them already.

A point of agreement!

Sorry, that came off harsher than intended. Forgive my lack of smilies. Though I will say that the "I know you're a bunch of liberals" preface is pointless and a convenient way to pre-dismiss any response to you. Just have the balls to state your opinion, don't make excuses and don't start straight-off with dismissive lables. But anyway, not as big a deal as my post made it sound.

Knowledge is power.

even if it was accurate? ;)

What?! A new ride is opening in Disneyland?

Really? Did Cheney have a good understanding of them over a year ago when he said that the insurgency was in its last throes? Did we have a good understanding when we failed to send enough troops at the onset or failed to secure the weapons that were there?

No, I think there was room for improvement in our understanding, and still is.

With one major difference....there's an active WMD in Sacramento, baby.



The 'W' stands for woman, right?

THEN WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?????:D

I've agreed that this is what happens. The negative news is the news.

Because it's fun, Captain Caps Lock.
:D

There is always room for more understanding. I don't necessarily think that a lack of complete understanding means action should not be taken. Otherwise action is never taken.

And in terms of understandnig, I meant motivation, not tactics or not making mistakes. Uderstanding who the enemy is is different than having complete knowledge of what they will do or the exact adjustments that will be made.

Some WWII general...was it Eisenhower?...said every battle plan is good until you engage the enemy (or something like that).

Condi's Wild Ride


If you love 16" double-ended dildos, then this is THE ride for you.

Does it matter to you that I only think it and never type it?:)

Sorry, this is from a much earlier quote but I had to respond to it.

Apparently CNN and every other media outlet has a different take on what is newsworthy because the only story getting attention yesterday was about good news concerning a plot uncovered that prevented planes from being crashed. So it would seem that stories about planes that don't crash is considered newsworthy. :)

That's all fine except that Bush's daddy wrote many years earlier why we didn't invade Iraq after Kuwait. Every reservation he had proved to be accurate. It's one thing to not know how the enemy is going to respond. It's quite another to have that information before you, then disregard it when it puts a damper on your preconceived plans.

Response #1
I know I shouldn't repsond to this because you're just a right wing trouble maker who's looking for an excuse to ruffle feathers, but yes, even if it was accurate. If the environment described in the preface bothers you, don't post. If you don't have a problem with it, just post and accept the reality of the environment you're posting in.

Response #2
Sure, even if it's accurate. If the environment described in the preface bothers you, don't post. If you don't have a problem with it, just post and accept the reality of the environment you're posting in.




Now, which of those responses is a contribution to a discussion, and which is a dismissive quip likely to just cause pointless argument?

Ahh.....but the story wasn't about planes that didn't crash, it was about a foiled plot to make planes crash. When CNN starts reporting that flight 817 from Phoenix to Las Vegas made it without a hitch I think the air travel industry is in real trouble. Also, if it becomes so common place that foiling such a plot is no longer news worthy, the air travel industry is bigger trouble.

Is Mickey Lumbo visiting?

This is true. However, in light of the intelligence (and I'll admit it wasn't accurate assuming that you admit it was from intelligence services all over the world, not just ours), I wonder if the invasion would have seemed worth the risk to the elder Bush.

edited to add: I'm still not convinced that the Russians didn't help the Iraqis move the stuff to Syria in the weeks preceding the invasion, but that's another story.

Being that he seemed to have a much better grasp of foreign policy and had more of an ability to see the big picture, I highly doubt it. But we'll never know for sure, I suppose.

And they call us conspiracy theorists. ;)

Seriously though, what would the motivation have been, in your opinion, to do something this bold right after 9/11?

Meh- I was just playing around anyway. I know the environment- and I post anyway (actually- maybe in spite of it I post anyway) ;)

Spoil sport:p


They've picked up alot of those missing Egyptian students....wonder what will come of all that.

..and harkening back to that "joke" World Trade Center movie opens strong (stronger than expected)

Are you speaking in terms of the Russians helping Iraq move stuff to Syria?

Iraq spent lots of money on Russian tech. The cash poor Russians are willing to sell them anything. I think much of the equipment being used was Russian and that in the light of sanctions against Iraq the Russians could not afford the international and diplomatic black eye of the Iraqis getting caught with it.

In looking at the oil for food program where money earmarked for humanitarian purposes was spent on French and Russian munitions, I don't find it my scenario hard to believe at all.

Much easier to believe than the US government orchestrating 9/11.

Source

"Oops, our bad." Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Ah yes. And this is the heart of the issue. Honestly. We can never be 100% safe. We come up with new regulations. They will find a new way around them. They will start swallowing the bombs and figure out how to detonate them with their sunglasses.

We just need to keep on keeping on.

Holy Crap!!!! That's freaking awesome!

What, you haven't seen GC's patented Captain Long John?

:argghh:
:decap:

Or my favorite...

:tiki:
:decap:

No worries, though what I actually said was that this is an extremely liberally-biased board...not that you are all just a bunch of liberals. I could see that statement you made as being more cause for dismissal than the one I actually made. If anyone disagrees that most folks on this board are of the liberal mindset (as opposed to more conservative), I'm happy to hear from you. It's not a dismissive label, but rather what I believe to be a statement of fact. Not a big surprise really. It is an environment that tends to attract folks with those sorts of viewpoints and personalities. And generally, I tend to like to hang out with those types of people, regardless of the fact that my political views vary dramatically.

Granted I have not been on in a while...so maybe there was a dramatic shift. Maybe Sceagles and Moorigoon are no longer the only token conservatives. If so...feel free to prove me wrong.

GC- I didn't really believe people would really be angry...that was just a joke...pulp fiction reference. Anyway...and I never said that the board is necessarily closed-minded. However, it is a topic that clearly impassions a lot of people and it is one where most people have already made up their mind. I tried to side-step this by not questining the validity of the war, but rather the role of media. My light-hearted comment about the political direction of this board was just that. I don't get involved in many of these threads, but I do see a definite shared viewpoint by the majority, and some of the retorts against this shared ideology do seem to be frowned upon...resulting in personal attacks by some at times. That's all.

Maybe that's why mom said to never discuss politics or religion. Actually, mom was an idiot...but I think I saw someone on TV say that once.

I just wet my pants...those are soo cool.:snap:

I don't disagree that there are a great majority who share a liberal viewpoint, but saying, "so anything that is said that could possibly be deemed as supportive of what is seen as an evil republican regime will be struck down with furious anger", you're implicitly saying, "I'm going to ignore any response because it's just the liberal reaction." That's the dismissive bit. Like I said in my repsonse to Neph above, just state you're opinion. No need to qualify it. If people agree, they'll let you know. If people disagree, they'll let you know. Why the need to turn it into "me" vs. "them"?

Bah, I've already given this too much effort. Go change your pants.

#1 is much funnier so I vote for that. You really can't take yourself too seriously. Otherwise we'd be actually directing foreign policy from the war room, not from the living room in our underwear.

No, I was actually just trying to make people laugh. It was a joke. Dry humour, it's what I do.

I know. And like I said, my response was too and I really didn't care. But since ya' asked, I gave you the reason I reacted to your joke with my joke.

You smell like poo

At least my pants are dry.

Scaeagles is the well spoken conservative

Morrigoon is the libertarian/conservative

I am the fiery emotional figuring out the best way to deal with certain ideaology without saying "are you f'in kidding me!" conservative

I am sure there are others about- but they are likely quieter than we three.

I'm simply libertarian and think you're all fascistic whackjobs.

well, you're just jealous :p

Let's not forget SleepyJeff, a connservative with a fondness for box fans and a really nice guy. :)

**slaps head** How could I forget my buddy SJ!

*grovel* forgive me Jeff..forgive**:D

I love putting people into camps.

Kevy Baby
MBC (during pillow talk)

I think it's just describing general leanings. I have my issue or two I lean toward the left on, but there have been issues where WB or MBC or someone has agreed with me, leaning right.

NA is in the crazy cat lady psycho stalker camp.

:) exactly

That- and look- putting people in camps? Sounds like an admission of being a bunch of liberals to me ;)

we all do it to some extent-

I am the crazy cat lady psycho stalker camp counselor. Wanna go camping? Today's lesson will be about sarcasm.

You've expressed your distaste with putting people in labelled groups before, so I missed it.

After reading ML's post yesterday morning, I turned on talk radio once I got mom in the car. Since it had happened in the waaaay early morning she hadn't heard anything about it. She was trying to figure out why daddy's paper hadn't been delivered yet. I do believe this qualified as a Stop The Presses moment.

You're right, I do find most people - at least on this board - to be a bit to complex to be pigeonholed into general camps. But, my comment was just me being sarcastic about my own distae rather than discussing it some more at length.

And now, back on topic:

TSA Requiring Travelers to Empty Bladders Before Boarding Planes -- BBSpot News

Back on topic in a serious fashion (though no offense to Andrew's comedy above)......

Terrorists are a cancer.

No one wants cancer.

Sometimes you think you have killed he cancer, and it comes back. Sometimes it goes into remission and goes dormant for a while, and then returns in some capacity.

Sometimes you can kill a cancer, sometimes you can't. The side effects of treatments to kill cancer are sometimes (usually?) horrible. However, if you do nothing about the cancer, it will win by default.

This is how I feel about terrorists and terrorist organizations. They must be hunted down and killed or they will grow and win.

Interesting analogy except that most cancer treatments don't give the cancer reason to spread.

Will tomorrow's lesson be about understanding the humor in winking smilies?:p

The cancer was spreading prior to any treatment.

Sorry but nowhere near the same rate. Our escapade into Iraq was a terrorist recruiter's wet dream.

When I had cancer they nuked it.

This is why 9/11 happened pre Iraq, I'm sure.

I'm with scaeagles as far as rooting out and destroying terrorism is concerned. I just don't buy the methodology that our government is prescribing. It doesn't make sense.

- a bunch of potential terrorists are arrested because they plan to take down planes with liquid-based explosives.

- the next day, Americans can't bring liquids on airplanes.

- how do they know that liquid explosives work?

- because they were used in 1995.

The timing of the new ban seems do more to foment panic (power by fear) than it does to actually prevent terrorism.

And that's one example of why I'm annoyed

(and if we're putting people into groups, I'm the registered Libertarian who tries to balance his fiscally conservative mind with his socially responsible and sometimes bleeding heart)

Well, except that I never denied that terrorism was a problem pre-Iraq.

Maybe this will help illustrate my point.

And tracilicious knows 4 people cured of cancer by herbs.

By any chance would anybody know of an herb we could give to the cancer of terrorists that would just mellow them the hell down?

MBC, Sac, and ISM can be our "herbal ambassadors" to the terrorists.

From the Washington Post...

I'm sure that Sac has more than enough to share.

If terrorism was clearly rising prior to Iraq, including the largest attack ever on US soil, then I cannot see that the causality of increasing terrorism is Iraq. Terrorist roles may in fact be growing; they were growing before Iraq. There is no way to prove they are growing faster because of Iraq.

By the time we are done with those bastards, a box of Oreos and a playstation will keep them far too busy to bomb anything.

So, legalizing pot will cure the world of terrorists. I can deal with that. ;)

Regarding your excerpt, MBC....terrorist acts have surely increased in Iraq due to Iraq. Chechnya, India, the Phillippines, Israel, and perhaps all of the others are not because of Iraq. They are because of radical Islamic extremists who would be doing it whether Iraq happened or not.

That list doesn't show much since it only covers the first 9 months after we invaded Iraq and most of the terrorist attacks it lists are in Iraq in opposition to our invasion. It doesn't really show much of an increase in Islamist terrorism in those nine months over the previous nine months if you exclude the areas where terrorist activities were already high. Such as FARC assassinations in Colombia, suicide bombs in Israel, and Chechen resistance in Russia. So, roughly categorizing what might be non-background level of terrorism outside of Iraq.

I'd be interested to see a list of terrorist actions outside of Iraq over the last three years. I have no idea if it has gone up or down

9 months prior to Iraq Invasion

Hostage Rescue Attempt in the Philippines, June 7, 2002: Philippine Army troops attacked Abu Sayyaf terrorists on Mindanao Island in an attempt to rescue U.S. citizen Martin Burnham and his wife Gracia, who had been kidnapped more than a year ago. Burnham was killed but his wife, though wounded, was freed. A Filipino hostage was killed, as were four of the guerrillas. Seven soldiers were wounded.

Car Bombing in Pakistan, June 14, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Consulate and the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan. Eleven persons were killed and 51 were sounded, including one U.S. and one Japanese citizen. Al Qaida and al-Qanin were suspected.

Attack on a School in Pakistan, August 5, 2002: Gunmen attacked a Christian school attended by children of missionaries from around the world. Six persons (two security guards, a cook, a carpenter, a receptionist, and a private citizen) were killed and a Philippine citizen was wounded. A group called al-Intigami al-Pakistani claimed responsibility.

Attack on Pilgrims in Kashmir, August 6, 2002: Armed militants attacked a group of Hindu pilgrims with guns and grenades in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Nine persons were killed and 32 were wounded. The Lashkar-e-Tayyiba claimed responsibility.

Assassination in Kashmir, September 11, 2002: Gunmen killed Kashmir’s Law Minister Mushtaq Ahmed Lone and six security guards in Tikipora. Lashkar-e-Tayyiga, Jamiat ul-Mujahedin, and Hizb ul-Mujahedin all claimed responsibility. Other militants attacked the residence of the Minister of Tourism with grenades, injuring four persons. No group claimed responsibility.
Attack on a French Tanker, October 6, 2002: An explosive-laden boat rammed the French oil tanker Limburg, which was anchored about 5 miles off al-Dhabbah, Yemen. One person was killed and 4 were wounded. Al-Qaida was suspected.

Car Bomb Explosion in Bali, October 12, 2002: A car bomb exploded outside the Sari Club Discotheque in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, killing 202 persons and wounding 300 more. Most of the casualties, including 88 of the dead, were Australian tourists. Seven Americans were among the dead. Al-Qaida claimed responsibility. Two suspects were later arrested and convicted. Iman Samudra, who had trained in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda and was suspected of belonging to Jemaah Islamiya, was sentenced to death on September 10, 2003.

Assassination of an AID Official, October 28, 2002: Gunmen in Amman assassinated Laurence Foley, Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for International Development Mission in Jordan. The Honest People of Jordan claimed responsibility.

Attack on Temples in Kashmir, November 24, 2002: Armed militants attacked the Reghunath and Shiv temples in Jammu, Kashmir, killing 13 persons and wounding 50. The Lashkare-e-Tayyiba claimed responsibility.

Attack on a Bus in the Philippines, December 26, 2002: Armed militants ambushed a bus carrying Filipino workers employed by the Canadian Toronto Ventures Inc. Pacific mining company in Zamboanga del Norte. Thirteen persons were killed and 10 wounded. Philippine authorities suspected the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which had been extorting money from Toronto Ventures. The Catholic charity Caritas-Philippines said that Toronto Ventures had harassed tribesmen who opposed mining on their ancestral lands.

Assasination of a Kurdish Leader, February 8, 2003: Members of Ansar al-Islam assassinated Kurdish legislator Shawkat Haji Mushir and captured two other Kurdish officials in Qamash Tapa in northern Iraq.

9 months after Iraq Invasion

Truck Bomb Attacks in Saudi Arabia, May 12, 2003: Suicide bombers attacked three residential compounds for foreign workers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The 34 dead included 9 attackers, 7 other Saudis, 9 U.S. citizens, and one citizen each from the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Philippines. Another American died on June 1. It was the first major attack on U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia since the end of the war in Iraq. Saudi authorities arrested 11 al-Qaida suspects on May 28.

Suicide Bomb Attacks in Morocco, May 16, 2003: A team of 12 suicide bombers attacked five targets in Casablanca, Morocco, killing 43 persons and wounding 100. The targets were a Spanish restaurant, a Jewish community, a Jewish cemetery, a hotel, and the Belgian Consulate. The Moroccan Government blamed the Islamist al-Assirat al-Moustaquim (The Righteous Path), but foreign commentators suspected an al-Qaida connection.

Hotel Bombing in Indonesia, August 5, 2003: A car bomb exploded outside the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing 10 persons and wounding 150. One of the dead was a Dutch citizen. The wounded included an American, a Canadian, an Australian, and two Chinese. Indonesian authorities suspected the Jemaah Islamiah, which had carried out the October 12, 2002 bombing in Bali.

Suicide Bombing in Riyadh, November 8, 2003: In Riyadh, a suicide car bombing took place in the Muhaya residential compound, which was occupied mainly by nationals of other Arab countries. Seventeen persons were killed and 122 were wounded. The latter included 4 Americans. The next day, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said al-Qaeda was probably responsible.

Synagogue Bombings in Istanbul, November 15, 2003: Two suicide truck bombs exploded outside the Neve Shalom and Beth Israel synagogues in Istanbul, killing 25 persons and wounding at least 300 more. The initial claim of responsibility came from a Turkish militant group, the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front, but Turkish authorities suspected an al-Qaeda connection. The next day, the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi received an e-mail in which an al-Qaeda branch called the Brigades of the Martyr Abu Hafz al-Masri claimed responsibility for the Istanbul synagogue bombings.

More Suicide Truck Bombings in Istanbul, November 20, 2003: Two more suicide truck bombings devastated the British HSBC Bank and the British Consulate General in Istanbul, killing 27 persons and wounding at least 450. The dead included Consul General Roger Short. U.S., British, and Turkish officials suspected that al-Qaeda had struck again. The U.S. Consulate in Istanbul was closed, and the Embassy in Ankara advised American citizens in Istanbul to stay home.

Attempted Assassination in Rawalpindi, December 25, 2003: Two suicide truck bombers killed 14 persons as President Musharraf’s motorcade passed through Rawalpindi, Pakistan. An earlier attempt on December 14 caused no casualties. Pakistani officials suspected Afghan and Kashmiri militants. On January 6, 2004, Pakistani authorities announced the arrest of 6 suspects who were said to be members of Jaish-e-Muhammad.

And to show that I'm more serious about fighting terrorism than everyone else, from now on I'm draining all non-essential fluids prior to boarding. So, uh, make sure the bathroom handsoap dispenser is stocked, Mr. Airport Janitor Maintenance Engineer.

Barney sez, "Sharing is caring". I care, Traci. I care.

Umm.... well... heh.... I do, but... could you like, get me some fig newtons first? I've got the munchies BIG TIME!

:evil:

How is it iplicit?

He is actualy the one claiming conservitve opinions are being dismissed out of hand. You dodge this point why? Because of it's tone?

Why then so agrieved by this even to the point of turning it around to a dismissal of other well crafted enlightened folk dismissals... Are you hard pressed to find supporting evidence that this is not the case? Perhaps even guilty of unleshing various degrees of said furious anger, or do you actualy belive it has no point in open debate, or do you so savor the golden oppertunity to drive home a counterpoint point without it being waived off by the "pig headed" conservitive originator.

If responce matters not and you wan't unvarnished opinion as you claim in this post meaning she should :my words: (grow a pair) and "just state an opinion" as you advise below. Should not any counter arguments be weighted the same?

They seem counter-intuitive advice wise, perhaps becuase Eric dosen't give a mad Fvck and Neph certainly does I would ask is your advice is tailored to each?

Either way as far as Me Vs. Them it is a Feeling/Belief that should not be argued I'm sure the Us (Enlightenened/world citizen/Liberal) Vs. them (neocon/hick) is a living breathing feeling/belief of a great majority who post here and feel unheard by the majority. Realize that sometimes it's a struggle for us thinking non-backwoods hicks on the otherside to not dissmiss unfounded opinions or inside jokes as clasic moonbat fare. Even when you find them chuckleworthy they are all not worthy of a hauty chinstroking "interesting"

I thought you didn't enjoy preaching to the quire and this post struck me off hand as a blatant STFU disenter thread. When you are the fishbowl gardian it is something to check against. Especialy when complaining about the larger pond being chalk full with slow swimmers that disagree are stupid and need to listen to reason.

Bah, me too. Fvcking hippies give me a headache (although I listen to worse on the inter-office mail-server)

I'm not exactly sure what you just said.

Then you must be suffering from stolkholm syndrome :evil:

Apparently that particular herbal cancer cure is quakery. At least, it can't be shown to be effective in preventing the cancer. Maybe it does cure it once it starts.

From an ABC story on the people arrested:

I think that proves the point Alex. When he was on weed he was not trying to blow people up. Off of it he was. The government should start mass distribution.

Depends on the sequence of events. Was he on the weed when he decided terrorism was better?

Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll will be what wins the war for us - we need to export porn, drugs liquor, CDs and DVDs - it's worked for year in our country with an occasional school shooting here or there

Tramspotter and NirvanaMan - separated at birth.

you said a mouthful, sista:snap:

So, the first LoT new airport rules victim was Moonliner. How much fun was it, Moonie?

Chris is flying on the 21st, NM and B leave for an international destination sometime in the next 2 weeks.....tell us how much fun it is!

LAX's baggage handling system, already the busiest in the world, is reportedly nearing total breakdown under the increased strain of everyone checking all their baggage.

I'm glad I'm not flying anywhere in the forseeable future.



On another front, Dick Cheney admitted he had already known of the British airliner plot when he made the comment, the day before the UK arrests broke the story, that Joe Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary would "encourage Al Queda types."

Can that man get any more despicable????

We just need video of him tossing kittens into a furnace...

I'm sure Leo can arrange that.

----------

My mom is flying back from Canada in a few days. The airports there are following the same restrictions that are being followed here.

I will be amazed if her luggage shows up.

I read this morning that the new security restrictions are unsustainable for Heathrow - they've had to cancel a third of thier flights

;) I've never been more glad to be too in debt to travel.

Ah, but prices should now come down eh?

As soon as they start paying me to fly, I'll be on the next plane.

Ugh, I have international travel in just 11 days. I am glad they are taking precautions for my safety. I always bring my own bottled water because I usually need it before the flight attendants come by. I already feel parched.

All I can say is thank God the terrorists didn't come up with a bomb made out of solids

So, is Duty Free not an option anymore?

It seems that a lot of stores behind security are shipping items now free of charge.

Hmmm - so how many bottled of duty free liquor can I ship to myself over what time frame I wonder....

slight rule change today... 4 oz of non perscription medication can be carried on now. At least on domestic flights.

My father in law is heading off to he Ukraine next month. He's bumming that his 18 hours of flight will not include his laptop.

Heh. You should see the sign at the front door of my house. :cool:

Here's an article on Duty Free stores that was in yesterday's Chronicle.

I'm amused by the instances of requiring people that do bring liquids on to taste them first.

As a recent piece at Slate said few of the potential chemicals for such bombs are immediately fatal and it is hard to believe that such a terrorist would have a problem taking a couple sips of slow-acting poisons. They are, after all, planning to die within the next few hours anyway.

why have I not heard a single reporter ask that rather obvious question about the effacacy of the revised screening procedures?

Here's a quote from Bush today:
And here's a news story from Yahoo:

(maybe this will lure scaeagles out of hiding)

Good point. Though I wonder if the security folks are watching to see people's reactions to the taste. I would assume the chemicals are quite unpleasant and would likely induce a grimace upon consumption.

As grimacy as scaeagles new avatar?










(now let's see if that lures him out of hiding)

Or this