Skip to main content

Sometimes dKos can be so very disappointing.

Here's some basic facts that some people seem to be having trouble dealing with regarding this morning's news of a thwarted terrorist attack. If you wrote a diary or comment this morning about how bullshit these latest threats are, please print this out and tape it to your monitor.

1) Terrorists genuinely exist and are trying to kill innocent people, regardless of anything done by George W Bush.

2) Not all reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else.

3) Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared.

4) The thwarting of a major attack is genuinely newsworthy.

Complain all you want about the shitty coverage, about the twisting of the story by interested parties, about the new flying restrictions, whatever. But don't deny the facts on the ground. It makes you look like a Republican.

Furthermore, the story here is that THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR IS NOT WORKING! The thwarted attack is more proof that GWB is doing a "heck of a job" dismantling Al Qaeda. By all reports, the plot was international, well planned, and well backed. That's fucking serious. It is further proof that although the GOP talks a good game on security, they are full of shit.

It is not proof that Cheney has orchestrated an elaborate plot to steal the spotlight from Ned Lamont's victory in the Connecticut primary.

Originally posted to bluesteel on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:31 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Just because I'm paranoid, (123+ / 0-)

    it doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

    "Don't blame me, I voted for the smart guy."

    by frsbdg on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:24:10 AM PDT

  •  I Totally Agree...If People Would.... (45+ / 0-)

    Turn down their spidey sense for one minute, they would see that

    (a) there are still people who want to hurt the West.
    (b) this does not automatically send the American electorate running into the arms of the Bush administration.

    At some point, doesn't "elect us to make you safer" and "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" look pretty hollow when you are standing in a 90-minute security checkpoint to fly from LA to Vegas (as my wife just did), being told to empty out your bottled water and toiletries.

    "It. Is. About. Winning."

    by Steve Singiser on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:24:41 AM PDT

    •  unfortunately (49+ / 0-)

      I'm not sure about point #2. I think a lot of folks do instinctively run to the Bush administration, primarily because they've successfully peddled their line about being strong on security.

      Democrats still-- still!-- need to counter that. Giving Lieberman the boot was a good first step, but there's work to be done. Today's news should be made a big deal of by Democrats.

      •  Try this! (20+ / 0-)

        (1) Republicans have had five years to Fight the War On Terra
        (2) The Terra-ists still exist! They are NOT being contained in the Middle East!
        (3) Clearly, whatever the Republicans are doing IS NOT
        WORKING
        (4) Time to retire the pitcher, throwing too many hits.

        •  and according to the news reports... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          arkdem, joanneleon, tovan

          ...the terra-ists are soooo much more sophisticated, planning in-air alchemy. and all this time i thought we had those al qaeda dudes on the run...

          The radical invents views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them. - Mark Twain

          by FemiNazi on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:10:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  A lot of terrorism occurred (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ihlin, Ben P, progressive pete, gpm
        during Clinton's watch.  The point is that the terrorist hate us, regardless of the political affiliation of the US president and I doubt any president could do better...its obviously damn tough.

        Other than that minor point, I agree with your diary.

        Best regards,

        The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

        by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:59:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why do the terrorists hate us? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Levity, gpm
          •  our policies drive them to it. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WeatherDem, tovan

            middle east
            Israel is always right, especially when it is in the wrong
            banking
            trade
            environment

            the list is huge.

            In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

            by agnostic on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:09:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and then there is (6+ / 0-)

              the fact that they are fucking crazy.

              •  Every human being has a limit of what is 'crazy.' (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nasarius, Krum

                Electricity for an hour a day?  Food is tough to get? Politicos are killing your neighbors?  Big scary military super-powers pointing guns in your direction?

                No one is immune from becoming "crazy."

                Most Americans are just too fat and happy to understand that anymore.

                •  well noone is immune to being driven crazy, but (0+ / 0-)

                  you seem to be confusing the iraqi people with terrorists (my comment was a continuation of a response to "Why do the terrorists hate us?"). we've created the majority of current heartache in Iraq and we owe the people there. but even the pathetic situation those people find themselves in doesn't excuse killing people randomly (or for being a particular sort of Muslim). if you do kill people indiscriminately or because of "religious conviction", then you're batshit crazy. you don't have to be a fat, lazy American to have such an understanding.

            •  Why then (0+ / 0-)

              are there no El Salvadoran or Nicaraguan (or, fill in blank) terrorists?

              "Virginia Woolf's idea of a room of one's own has never been the place for middle- and working-class women. We work with interruptions." - Ananya Chatterjea

              by sarac on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:21:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  there have been, and may be again (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tovan

                I'd call the nixon-supported death squads of El Salvador terrorists.
                I'd call the Reagan-supported death squads of Nicaragua terrorists, as well.

                In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

                by agnostic on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:44:53 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not really the same (0+ / 0-)

                  Terrorists to people living in those countries, yes.  I'm talking about anti-American terrorism, as a backlash against our foreing policies.

                  Supporting violent domestic dissent in someone else's country is a situation that those presidents intentionally directed, that never spilled over in the same way onto Americans abroad in other countries or at home.

                  "Virginia Woolf's idea of a room of one's own has never been the place for middle- and working-class women. We work with interruptions." - Ananya Chatterjea

                  by sarac on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:52:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  1 man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter. (0+ / 0-)

                    that about says it all, no?
                    Until they were caught and sent to siberia (those who survived capture), there was a group of educated freedom fighters known as Misko Broliai - Forest's brothers - who continued to attack and harass Soviet installations, military bases and administrators in the Soviet baltic states. Look at them from the USSR's point of view. They were no better than Chechin terrorists.
                    Or how did the Brits view our tea party pseudo indians in Boston harbor?  And how have we treated AmerIndian separatist groups?

                    Isn't it slightly myopic to demand that attention be directed solely to anti-American terrorists?

                    In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

                    by agnostic on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:35:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

                      I mean, not if the usual argument is that it's obvious why certain Muslim or Arab groups would be anti-American to a suicide-bombing degree, that reason being our horrific foreign policies.  I think there are millions of people in South America with equal reason to feel that way, who haven't had the same reaction, and I've never seen a good discussion of why that is.

                      "Virginia Woolf's idea of a room of one's own has never been the place for middle- and working-class women. We work with interruptions." - Ananya Chatterjea

                      by sarac on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:12:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, Puerto Rican nationalists did wound (0+ / 0-)

                    ... 5 congressmen when they fired automatic pistols from the gallery of the House of Representatives in 1954. (link to Wikipedia article). That would certainly count as a "terrorist incident" today, although at the time that terminology was not yet in use.

                    •  Thats (0+ / 0-)

                      very interesting to know about, thank you!

                      "Virginia Woolf's idea of a room of one's own has never been the place for middle- and working-class women. We work with interruptions." - Ananya Chatterjea

                      by sarac on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:10:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Most people ask the wrong question (0+ / 0-)

              It's not "why do the terrorists hate us?"

              It's "What do the terrorists hate?"  They hate the U.S.' policies.  Policies that affect millions of people in a negative way every day.  Policies that get sold at home as one thing and manifest as another thing in the real world.

              The U.S. has stuck its finger in everything it possibly can since WWII.  Numerous countries in western Europe have gone along.  Collectively, the West has kept a stranglehold on the ability of other countries' citizens to improve meaningfully.  They've been purposefully kept in poverty with shitty governments oppressing them with our government's overt support.

              I'd be pissed off at U.S. policy too if I were them.  And if I thought it might help, I'd also act out against Western interests.

              Not everything our government does is benign.  That results in lots of frustration and anger.  Until we change our policies, we can't change that frustration and anger.

              •  True WeatherDem, but I would add .... (0+ / 0-)

                that it goes way beyond sticking their fingers in everything, and is much more severe than your statement "not everything our government does is benign." I hear what you are trying to say, but we let the U.S. government off the hook unless we call a spade a spade.

                They have either supported or directly participated in terrorism around the globe for decades. As you mention it has been going on for a long time. I think most people are blind to the international crimes the U.S. has committed, that by far make them the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world.

                This is serious stuff and explains to a great extent why there is terrorism and why many people hate our government and in some cases our country.  

                •  Oh, I agree completely (0+ / 0-)

                  I have no interest in letting my government off the hook any longer.  Our government is in my estimation the largest state-sponsor of terror in the world.  And has been for longer than I've been alive.

                  We prop up/install/take down governments, leaders, military coups, etc. etc. as the mood fits us at the moment.  And while "we're" doing it, we don't give a fig about what the long-term consequences will be.  The bonus part is U.S. citizens are less secure than they should be and they're the ones that almost universally end up getting hurt or killed, not the people that made the decisions to get involved where we don't belong.

                  Most people are blind to what our government has done in our names.  I know I was until only recently (post-2004 election).  That's why I phrased it as "not everything our government does is benign."  I wasn't ready until then to hear the truth of our policies.  The majority of our fellow citizens still aren't.  Going off half-cocked about the crimes we commit doesn't allow for conversation with people who are still blind or in denial.  I was trying to make a point without coming off as unhinged.  But I'm glad someone else out there has some solid understanding of where things really stand.

                  What frustrates me is due to the lack of knowledge and/or caring of our citizenry, the neo-cons keep trying to play the fear card and tell everyong "they hate our freedom."  It's such a line of b.s. I nearly scream every time I hear it now.  If Americans had a taste of what "our freedom" does to other people, we'd hate it just as much as they do.

                  Long-winded rant over.  Thanks for the addition Rogue Scoop!

                  •  Thanks WeatherDem (0+ / 0-)

                    and you made a very good point that I sometimes overlook:

                    Going off half-cooked about the crimes we commit doesn't allow for conversation with people who are still blind or in denial.

                    Occasionally my anger about what's happening with this regime (the most tyrannical and evil in our country's relatively short history, I'm sure)does get the best of me. Although I believe righteous anger is good and necessary, there are those who are not ready to deal with it. And your point is well taken.

                    Not that I go off half-cooked mind you -- I pride myself in speaking from an informed place and feel I can provide info to back up my statements -- but I do agree that sometimes we need to be a little more restrained in our tone and perhaps "spoon feed" those in denial small doses of these particularly distasteful truths, so they won't spit it up, so to speak.

                    This is a good point you bring up about people who are "still blind or in denial" and is something I personally need to take into account more often.

                    Thanks

                    "Be nice to America, or esle they'll brind democracy to your country."
                     

                    •  Heh (0+ / 0-)

                      I unfortunately have a tendency to get very... passionate about this subject.  After I'm done ranting, I realize I can come across as half-cocked to people who haven't been paying the kind of attention to the subject that I have.

                      In talking with people, I have to remind myself to start from a position that's close to their mindset or my arguments seem conspiracy-theory-ish or that I'm just a crazy who hates government.

                      Good luck in your efforts to shed light on the subject!

          •  This is the most important question to ask HERE. (0+ / 0-)

            But when you're waiting to board a plane, the most important question is not, "Why do they want to kill us?"  Rather, it is, "Are they going to try to kill us on this flight?"

            ----------------
            As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17

            by gpm on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:14:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  US & UK put in dictators to control Arab oil (9+ / 0-)

            That's the #1 reason they hate us. Everything else flows from that - if our oil wasn't under their sand, we wouldn't give a damn about the region. But because we do, we cannot permit real democracy to occur their - the nations might then make decisions that are in their interest, rather than ours.

            We have learned bupkiss (sp?) since Iran kicked out the shah, we put him back in, and Iran then kicked him out again and went with the ayatollahs they still have today.

            "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

            by jbeach on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:24:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And when the oil runs out (0+ / 0-)
              and they have to barter sand for whatever new fuel source the West develops...they will hate us for that.

              They will hate until they figure out that they are to blame for their own problems

              The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

              by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:45:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not exactly - read my previous post (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                chrississippi, tovan

                We are responsible for a lot of their problems. We and the British have been keeping them down to get their oil, for decades. Since good ol' Lawrence of Arabia cut a deal with the Saudi princes so Britain could get the lion's share of that oil distribution.

                Now, in another way, blame is irrelevant - here we are now, and we all have to find a way out of it. But it's important to have an accurate view of the past, in order to keep from doing the same thing.

                Which, unfortunately, the US keeps doing, with imposing dictators on weaker nations for our perceived self-interest, and then getting this weird amnesia for why those nations' people resent us.

                "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                by jbeach on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:58:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I understand your point, (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jbeach, joanneleon, zenbot, kck
                  but at a different point you must just pick up and carry on.  What happened to the grand civilization that carried on after Rome fell?  Why did it turn around and lose ground rather than race ahead of the mud-hut-dwelling West?

                  I will grant you that we share in their current situation, but there are definitely factors of inertia, graft, tribalism, corruption, autocratic rulers, and others at work here...not just the West.

                  The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

                  by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:05:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sure, totally (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joanneleon, USAFguy

                    Cool. Just wanted to make sure the US & UK role in the current situation wasn't being avoided.

                    I read a great book on a related subject once, "Introducing Islam".

                    http://www.amazon.com/...

                    I don't normally post amazon URL's, but the book really was so excellent, I'd recommend it to all here...put it all in a nutshell.

                    Anyway, the book pointed out the great leaps in science, math and architecture that occurred during the early Muslim civilization. They invented algebra and deduced laws of optics while the Europeans were still counting with Roman numerals...then a group of clerics assumed the right to interpret Islam, with verdicts that could not be challenged. The book states this as the point that Islamic civilization and culture stopped progressing and stalled, allowing the point where the Europeans caught up and took over.

                    I believe that's the same sort of group of clerics that's still interpreting Islam to this day, inside each of the various Islamic fundamentalist governments....

                    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

                    by jbeach on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:49:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  IMO (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Schtu
            Because like Nazis, White Supremacists, Black Supremacists, Nation of Islam...they want someone else to blame for their crappy situation...rather than themselves (and esp. someone other than their corrupt gov't)  

            An Army Captain I worked with is Lebanese Druze, he said that the press in the Islamic countries spew lies all the time...something he became familiar with when going back from time to time to visit his family in Lebanon.

            That's my best data point.

            Best regards,

            The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

            by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:30:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, IMO your explaination is unrepentently (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, Petronella

              ignorant of people's realities.

              No one wakes up some morning and decides to blow Americans up because of their "crappy situation." The Islamic press doesn't sit in some back room and chortle "Man, let's tell lies upon lies upon lies about Israel" just because they want to "blame" somebody else.

              Their lives suck.  The lives of their people suck.  And their problems become existential when they are powerless to do anything about that. We in the West have played a part in that powerlessness; by being stupid enough to support tyrants over these people, by using them for their petroleum resources, by believing them to be a lesser culture, and by being so willfullly ignorant about what would help these people feel less impotent.

              My best data point is your attitude that we don't owe these people anything because their situation is of their own doing.  I think they know damn well we think that, which---as you've got to understand---would fill anybody with rage.  

              "It's your own fucking fault" when it really isn't?    Yes, that'd make a person into a terrorist.

              Best regards,

              •  Its the difference between (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Molly Martinez
                wallowing in the luxury of blaming everyone else for your problems, or making a clean break of it.

                We have the same problem here.  As I recall, Bill Clinton had a crappy situation but rose high above it...but 99% rather sit and complain.

                Yep, unrepentant as charged.

                The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

                by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:08:13 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You and I don't know shit about powerlessness. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Petronella

                  Bill Clinton's upbringing was better than 100% of the people we're now dropping bombs on.

                  How do you make a clean break from a place where there isn't any place to go?

                  You've got a serious fantasy going about what forces downtrodden people actually face. Which---by the way---is yet another reason to hate those of us with better lives; because we're so ignorant about those with lesser lives.

                  •  The Army captain (0+ / 0-)
                    I mentioned, above, was born on Druze mountain and yet he was raised in America b/c his family was willing to leave to find opportunity.

                    Having lived in Turkey, Germany, and South Korea, I have a pretty good idea what motivates people to stay in one place...fear of the unknown and preference for "the devil they know."  Each of those places thought (1) they were special (2) they were better than their neighbors and (3) life may suck, but it was better than taking a chance someplace else b/c so-and-so tried and they failed.

                    The military is full of people from crappy situations, the "good" people never need to join.

                    Best regards,

                    The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

                    by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:23:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Because his family was (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      churchylafemme

                      able to leave to find opportunity.

                    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                      Each of those countries is special.  Each of them is better than their neighbours in certain ways.  Since when does life suck in those countries?   Germany has a higher standard of living than we do.  

                      How does that prove anything?

                      And you know what else - not all Lebanese people are poor.   Well, more are now than a month ago.

                      It's just not so black and white.

                      •  South Korea/Turkey (0+ / 0-)
                        are countries where family status is huge and if you are born poor, you are likely to stay poor.  Corruption is endemic and serves as a hidden tax on so much.  Its especially sickening in South Korea where it is a "developed" economy.

                        Germany didn't suck...but the taxes certainly served as disincentive for many as you could "exist" by working a year, being unemployed (by choice) for a year and getting a HIGH percentage of your income.  The taxes of reunification and social services certainly were not appreciated my the West Germans, and the unemployment in the East (and their loss of status) also was a source of problems.

                        Virtually all of the college grads (esp post-grad) spoke English well...so "es war nicht so schwer fur mich".

                        And the US was always the country they loved to hate, regardless of who was president.

                        As an ethnic german, I was really surprised at the lack of risk taking.  I don't agree with the comment of germany's standard of living...but that is a visceral belief and without data...they certainly have their emerging problems with foreigners and the ethnic germans returning from the former USSR.

                        Best regards,

                        The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

                        by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:17:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  So-called Anglo-Saxon countries don't get it (0+ / 0-)

                    United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand -- all benefited enormously from the luxury of "discovering" "empty" continents or islands into which they could expand (conveniently suppressing not just the physical existence but indeed often the very memory of the original inhabitants as they went).

                    As has been said of GWB and others born into wealth and privilege, it seems there are entire countries who were "born on third base and think they hit a triple."

          •  The Crusades and Imperialism (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zenbot

            That's what got them started on hating The West. They certainly hated the British for their terrible history in the region.

            The Eisenhower Doctrine put us in the place of the British, so we get a double dose of hate.

            They also hate us because they have been taught to hate us. Actual residue of Nazi era propaganda, plus Fundamentalist Islamic teachings. Supported by their leaders.

            And never underestimate the Culture of The Male Ego, Pride, Machismo....the kind of thing that leads to Honor Killings in families.

          •  Hate us for our Sex, Booze, Rock 'n Roll (0+ / 0-)

            They've been duly shocked by watching our TV and movies. Must look to them like the End of Civilization.

            Meanwhile, I think both sides watched too many James Bond movies.

          •  2 words: 'Punky Brewster.' (0+ / 0-)

            -4.88, -4.15 "It's all complicated; it's all connected. That's why we have to pay attention." - Jon Carroll, SFGate.com

            by Turbonerd on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 05:40:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  'a lot of terrorism occurred during Clinton's (7+ / 0-)

          watch"?

          Far more has happened during Bush's watch.  

          "The point is that the terrorist hate us".

          Facile.  Could we please cut down on the facile, self-indulgent psycholanalysis of terrorists?  It's been weak in content for a very long time.

          The general theme I agree with is that the amount of media coverage given to anti-terrorism is entirely disproportionate to its actual threat level, and is far too fawning and uncritical that one should expect from a decent media.

          •  IMO (0+ / 0-)
            Because like Nazis, White Supremacists, Black Supremacists, Nation of Islam...they want someone else to blame for their crappy situation...rather than themselves (and esp. someone other than their corrupt gov't)  

            An Army Captain I worked with is Lebanese Druze, he said that the press in the Islamic countries spew lies all the time...something he became familiar with when going back from time to time to visit his family in Lebanon.

            That's my best data point.

            Best regards,

            The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

            by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:25:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Um... (11+ / 0-)

          terrorist [sic] hate us, regardless of the political affiliation of the US president

          Couldn't agree more.

          I doubt any president could do better

          Couldn't agree less. The fact is that resources that could be better devoted to intelligence work and prevention and currently being sucked into a black hole in Iraq. Our ports are still as porous as ever. The Dept. of Homeland Security is a joke.

          Personally, I doubt any president could do worse.

          "They locked up a man who wanted to rule the world. The fools - they locked up the wrong man." - Leonard Cohen

          by turnover on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:10:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Correction - (0+ / 0-)

            Second quote, currently bolded, was supposed to have been in blockquotes.

            "They locked up a man who wanted to rule the world. The fools - they locked up the wrong man." - Leonard Cohen

            by turnover on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:11:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am not "prog" (0+ / 0-)
              but I lacked the finesse to say that it would be a nearly impossible job for ANY president.  Not that this one is doing a good job at it, but rather NO president could do a "good enough" job at it.

              lol... but thanks for the catch.

              Best regards,

              The Republicans are on a roll. Now they've introduced a resolution that says we stay in Iraq until Ann Coulter joins the Dixie Chicks...Bokbluster.com

              by USAFguy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:28:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  i agree with steve that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ben P, Steve Singiser

        it isn't automatic, and coupling that with the point you make in your second paragraph the synthesis seems to be that we should make a big deal out of the fact that five years after 9/11 the people of this country are still being controlled by fear of a nameless and faceless enemy ("terrorists"). that fact is evidence that the current government has failed its people.

        the reason i agree with steve is that our government was set up so that in times of crisis or uncertainty the people could go to the commander-in-chief for quick solutions. historically, this has been effective and useful, but we need to remind everyone that the current situation is different in that the commander doesn't even understand the situation and certainly hasn't provided any effective solutions to it (even with five years of what is effectively a monarchy). Bush's success on peddling that lame old line is secondary to historical enertia, imo.

      •  Just not true anymore. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, Steve Singiser

        This Washington Post poll from August 3 (that's right, last week) asked which party people thought would do a better job handling the campaign against terrorism.

        46% said the Democrats, 38% said the Republicans.  

        A lot of folks may have been slow on the uptake, but more and more are getting it now.

        "Virginia Woolf's idea of a room of one's own has never been the place for middle- and working-class women. We work with interruptions." - Ananya Chatterjea

        by sarac on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:20:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I Don't Disagree.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DMiller, Webster

        But it is fair to acknowledge that they were there before the first shots were fired under the Bush administration, and that it is likely that they'd be there if we pulled out of the Middle East tomorrow.

        Now, I agree: we don't need to exacerbate the situation by pinhead leadership on the issue (how many recruits do you think Al Qaeda got out of the Abu Ghraib incident alone?).

        "It. Is. About. Winning."

        by Steve Singiser on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:57:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Precisely. (9+ / 0-)

        We create terrorists daily. Bereaved parents, sons, daughters, siblings are ripe for AlQaeda to pick.

        We are sowing our own destruction.

        If we do not find a way to (1) live peacably with most of the Muslim world AND (2) take out genuine terrorists, then we are going to have some serious problems for generations to come.

        Live the questions. - Rainer Maria Rilke

        by Kimberly Stone on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:58:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  there are a lot of people in the west... (0+ / 0-)

        there are a lot of people in the west who want to hurt the west, but you don't see them revoking the bill of rights over that. somehow the idea of hateful people in other parts of the world are percieved as much more dangerous than the killers in this country.

    •  There's an intermediate position here (6+ / 0-)

      As the 2004 Bin Laden tape suggests, Al Qaeda believes that

      1. keeping the GOP in power is good for Al Qaeda; and
      1. threatening the US keeps the GOP in power

      One doesn't need to posit any conspiracy (beyond Al Qaeda itself) to imagine that the timing of this plot has to do with our upcoming elections.

      Now it's also possible that Al Qaeda is wrong this time, that threatening us won't throw the election to the GOP.  But just because they're wrong doesn't mean this is not what they're thinking.

      For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

      by GreenSooner on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:07:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right. It's not a conspiracy 'theory' (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, DMiller, LNK, RainyDay

        If the other folks have released tapes as to exactly what their plans are.  Bin Laden's plan all along was to get the US involved in a long occupation in the Middle East to drain our blood and treasure.  If we call off the war, he loses.

        As for throwing the election to the GOP, we need to be out now saying how much time do you give the GOP to make some sort of progress.

        A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.

        by Webster on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:13:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If so, (0+ / 0-)

        their timing is miserable. Today's events will be a bullet point in a speech come November, if that.

        •  I vote for 'if that.' (0+ / 0-)

          Unless it's something of great magnitude, the short attention span kicks in.  "Plots" uncovered more than 2 weeks out from the election (just to make a WAG) are useless for electoral purposes.

          ----------------
          As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17

          by gpm on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:37:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gpm

          ...but there's no indication that this plot was scheduled to be launched today, so far as I know.

          And it's also just possible that al Qaeda does not understand American politics as well as, say, American political junkies do.

          For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

          by GreenSooner on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:49:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely, the threat is there (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gpm

      and is actually worse than it was before 9-11.

      But the administration has consistently used terror alerts as a blanket justification for the Iraq War and disastrous GOP policies.  

      Whether this particular plot is real or not, Democrats have got to start responding to these alerts - making the case that we're now less safe because of Bush.  

      Otherwise, Cheney, Snow, Bush and Chertoff are going to frame this issue all the way through November.

      •  It looks like most people (0+ / 0-)

        completely ignored the second half of the diary, which, while not as apropos for this crowd, is more important.  With all the terror still going on, real or fake, the idea that Repubs are the security party is absolutely laughable.

        ----------------
        As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17

        by gpm on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:16:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  But but but (13+ / 0-)

    I need a good conspiracy!

    Truthfully, evil existed Before Cheney (BC), and will exist after (AC).

    It just won't have that funkalicious snarly style.

    30 yrs, and you haven't learned the 1st thing about politics.Sad.--RonK Seattle http://www.mehart.blogspot.com/ So, Okay, I Write

    by IsraelHand on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:24:44 AM PDT

  •  Ah, but you don't find the release of this news (34+ / 0-)

    just a tad suspicious, given Cheney's warning that Lieberman's defeat is "disturbing" because "Al Qaeda wants to break the will of the American people."  What's with all the sudden Al Qaeda warnings, when they stopped talking about those guys for years?  And on opening day of THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, no less?  You don't find that just a tad too convenient, on the heels of Lieberman's clear defeat and the shift in the American public's mood i.e. 60% against the war in Iraq?

  •  [slap in face with wet squirrel] (8+ / 0-)

    whew.  thanks, i needed that.  i don't know.  they've done so much creepy, orwellian evil over the last few years that it's hard to know where they'll stop.  my rational mind knows that's nonsense.  

    i hope that makes sense.  anyway, thanks for the reality check!

    "our politics are our deepest form of expression: they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future." - paul wellstone

    by liberalsouth on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:27:50 AM PDT

  •  More proof of importance of talking with enemies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, Red Bean

    Support the Republican Party! Buy gasoline.

    by annefrank on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:28:21 AM PDT

  •  So you're one of them! (5+ / 0-)

    This is just what you/they want us to believe.  Well I'm not falling for it.  

    Now, as I was saying, Pope John Paul I was killed by a secret group of Free Mason infiltrators - yes surprisingly related to the same folks who were responsible for the denigrating of James Buchanan - but that's another story altogether.

  •  asdf (39+ / 0-)

    I think it is the "boy who cried wolf syndrome".  It is hard to fault people for being suspicious after so many false alarms (raising of terrorist threat levels before elections) and fabrications of seriousness of plots (Sears Tower) and missteps (killing that poor guy on the subway in London).  So I can certainly understand why people might not want to take the first reports at face value.  On the other hand people should just wait until all the facts are out before jumping to any conclusions one way or the other.

  •  I just diaried about not trusting a THING (23+ / 0-)

    that comes out of our govt, or Britain. Yes, there are terrorists out there, but the timing is always a little too convenient to suit their purposes.

    My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

    by adigal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:29:32 AM PDT

  •  I think you're part of the Conspiracy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Joe Bob, Goldfish, Kingsmeg

    I think you are a plant.  A willing disciple, a willing conscript in the Armies of Darkness.  Prove that I'm wrong.  You can't can you.  There I've proved my case

    NUFF SAID

    •  my snarkdar is off today ?! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gkn

      is this snark?

      the diarist is right.  if a real plot is foiled then the alert should go up and we shouldn't be second-guessing an alert when the evidence is quite high of terrorist activity.

      the sad thing is, this is the first time that republicans haven't cried wolf and that since 9/11, every alert that i can think of, except this one, was politically motivated.  

      so, 99% of alerts have been bullshit.  it would be good if the diarist DID mention that; that's my only critique of the diary.

  •  No need for an 'elaborate plot'... (17+ / 0-)

    to spook the herd into a stampede. The former DHS director himself confessed that terror threats were manipulated (and don't ask for a link, I don't have time to look it up)Hell, even the media herd is asking why now? Why not sooner? Sadly, it doesn't take a deeply embedded conspiracy to manipulate the media. If the administration is trying to take the heat off anything, it's the Israeli/Hezbollah travesty. All morning I have seen nothing about Israel on cable news; it's all about a foiled terror plot.

  •  Subway threat! Subway threat! (5+ / 0-)

    !!Bloomberg says there's a subway thre...

    Wait, that's just an Upper West Side schoolgirl with a  Hello Kitty backpack.

    All reports? So far, we have vagueries and accounts of frustrated air travelers constituting "all reports." What say we abstain from any kind of judgement until we know the true details?

    down with fundaMENTALism

    by averageyoungman on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:30:44 AM PDT

  •  what's so f***ed up abuot this is that it may (29+ / 0-)

    be true...even likely is true that a group of British Muslim men wanted to stage a spectacular attack on unsuspecting people.

    This happens. Hotels get blown up. Airplanes. Nightclubs. Embassies. Federal buildings in Oklahoma City. Terrorism is a tactic. Terrorists are individuals who perform terrorist attacks. Sometimes they organize and plot. Sometimes they get caught and other times they succeed.

    People are necessarily terrified. Mission accomplished. And when people are afraid they look to the fatherland to protect them. So there is political gain for some when individual safety is threatened. It's August. It's Europe. Homegrown terrorists are more common in England and Spain than the US. Trains have been blown up, the tube as well. This is life in 2006.

    Our political leaders have exploited fear for their advantage ruthlessly and have sewn seeds of doubt about their integrity when it comes to the validity of terrorist threats. We don't believe them. Even after an attack like September 11.

    It's difficult to accept that there is nothing to today's arrests. Whether the threat was real or becoming real it is hard to accept that the British -- without an impending election -- would play US politics with terrorism. It is only August.
    Skepticism would be warranted if it were the last week of October.

    Terrorism is a tactic. It has been with us for centuries. It will remain with us until we are no longer here. The only way to deal with it is to minimize the hatred and anger that leads someone to value the destruction of an attack less than their own life. And to foil plots when we can, within the law, and without alarms and countless press conferences and campaign commercials and bells and whistles each time a bad guy gets caught.

    The tactic is brutal and we are all victims -- on all levels. Our cynicism (earned), our safety (rarely threatened), our patriotism (sternly tested), our vigilance against semi-facist leadership and mass media hysteria that uses threats of terror to increase viewership which nets more resources through the ability to charge higher advertising rates -- it's all in play in this age of fear.

    Stay alert.

  •  Yeah, if these were Al-Queda (16+ / 0-)

    then that is further proof that we took our eyes off the ball by going into Iraq, instead of continuing to focus most of our military effort on hunting Al-Queda, Bin-Laden, and destroying Al-Queda infrastructure.  

    If anything, this attempted attack shows how a well run, domestic anti-terrorism program can stop potential attacks, but also, how little progress has been made in the "war on terror".  A new strategy is needed, and Democrats are ready to bring it.

    •  I hope we're ready to bring it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrWolfy
      But what is the new strategy?  Anti-terrorism is police work?

      In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

      by yet another liberal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:46:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely, 100% N/T (6+ / 0-)

        -6.5, -7.59. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

        by DrWolfy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:53:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Anti-terrorism is police work. (8+ / 0-)

        Of course it is.  The most important point of all of this.  

        This war bullshit is a rhetorical justification for all sorts of dangerous destruction.

        Highest priority, maximun effort, but a law enforcement problem.

        Did you really expect good governance from those who scorn government?

        by Job52 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:51:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Take a look at this (2+ / 0-)

        Democrats.org has a post called "Democrats Offer Bold Security Agenda" that's worth checking out...

        Democratic leaders across the country joined House and Senate Democrats in unveiling a comprehensive plan for providing the American people with real security.  The agenda stands in stark contrast to the dangerous incompetence of the Republican leadership.

        Basically, redeploying some troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to finish the job.  Not to mention doubling the size of our special forces.  Catching Osama Bin-Laden, destroying Al-Queda infrastructure should be our top military priority.  This should not involve large amounts of troops on the ground.  Covert, special forces squads working with cooperating nations' clandestine operations should organize operations to uncover and infiltrate terrorist cells.

        You want some talking points about the Democratic defense plan?

        Democrats will take the fight to Al-Queda, capture Osama Bin-Laden, and bring him to justice for his murderous crimes against our citizens and the citizens of other nations.

        Democrats will acually LISTEN to the military and our Generals, unlike Bush and his republicans.

        Democrats will change strategy in Iraq by removing and redeploying American troops and by increasing diplomacy and financial support for the democratically elected gov't of Iraq.  Democrats will look for diplomatic solutions to the growing sectarian violence in the region.

        Democrats will engage Iran, Syria, and North Korea diplomatically, and ensure agreements which will strengthen, not weaken, the security of America and our Allies.

        Democrats will support our troops by passing a GI bill of rights that will protect our soldiers at home and abroad; on the battlefield with sufficient battle armor, and at home, with secure benefits, health care, and housing.

    •  GET A DEM TO SAY THIS!!!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobsquatch, yet another liberal
      1. This was an arrest due to intelligence not an attack on a sovereign nation
      1. It was created BY THAT ATTACK (more than likely).

      WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, but the people don't.

      Make someone say it.

      Feingold?

      -6.5, -7.59. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

      by DrWolfy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:52:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How many times you gotta get lied to (21+ / 0-)

    ..before you grow a healthy sense of suspicion?

    The GOP is pure Daffy Duck: "It's mine you hear? Mine, all mine! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahahahaha!" --Bill in Portland, Maine

    by rhetoricus on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:34:01 AM PDT

  •  Exactly and precisely correct... (9+ / 0-)

    The REAL story here is that "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is bullshit.

    They're already "here".  They're as home-grown as Timothy McVeigh. And every action we take or word we utter against Islam, or in support of Israel, or whatever, provides them with the psychological incentives they need in order to recruit persons who would be willing to KILL THEMSELVES for a cause.  Not that I'm advocating censorship or a change in our support of Israel (in general, not necessarily the current situation).  Just that we need to be realistic at how our words and deeds are viewed by suicide bombers. They get to point at Condi's "birth pangs" statement and say, "see, she wants to kill all of us. We need to kill them first."

    We have FUBAR'd the "war on terra" so thoroughly it will take decades to overcome.

    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

    by kmiddle on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:34:25 AM PDT

  •  You are being naive, IMHO (23+ / 0-)

    There may be real terrorists involved here, but they keep watch on these guys so that they can pull them out of their hat just when it's most helpful politically.  They have an inventory of terrorist plots that they keep on ice at all times, precisely because they want to make use of them for political purposes.  The terrorists are real enough, but that doesn't mean that you can take at face value the things that Bush, Chertoff et al. are saying.

    It is very hard for most rational, normal human beings to see what Bush and his co-conspirators are up to, because we tend to assume that, like us, they value and sincerely wnat to acheive peace and prosperity for all.  Unfortunately, they do not value these things.  Nor are they trying to do anything to acheive these things.  Instead, the only things they truly care about are power and money for themselves and their friends.  Everything they do is in service of those things.

    "But surely," you say, "they wouldn't play politics with something so important as national security!"  Like hell they wouldn't.

    I will say this for them:  they sure can put on a hell of a show when they want to.

    •  I don't say that they wouldn't play politics with (9+ / 0-)

      national security. I'm not a friggin' moron.

      But if you seriously think "they" have an inventory of terrorist plots they keep on ice, then you give "them" more credit than I do.

      I mean, their attempts at public manipulation via fear mongering is all really, really obvious to anyone with half a brain. It's "duct tape your windows"-style one shot press conference, it's not a backlog of full planned media scenarios with the cooperation of international anti-terrorism forces.

    •  This would imply (0+ / 0-)

      that they are in control of the terrorists, at all times.  In other words, the terrorist actions that they failed to prevent were ones that they allowed to go ahead out of choice.

      Big, big leap there.

      That which does not kill us makes us ill and bad-tempered

      by ignatz uk on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:04:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you misconstrue (0+ / 0-)

        I don't say they control any terrorists, or that they have perfect knowledge of any terrorists.

        But they do have some knowledge of some terrorist plots or groups.  They keep this knowledge at the ready so that they can go make an arrest when it's politically expedient.  

        The fact that the Brits are involved may mean that this is more legit than usual -- though there is little doubt that Tony Blair is still George Bush's lapdog and is cooperating with him to get something started with Syria and/or Iran.

        Michael Chertoff and his silly red alert, though, are pure rovian fear-mongering.  Next week I expect them to announce that they've turned the volume on their amplifiers up to 11, and that we're now on super-double-infra red alert.  Hoo boy, won't that be a good show.

    •  If I could, I'd recommend your comment 50 times. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ysbee
  •  Thank you (9+ / 0-)

    There is no secret cabal which orchestrates every major event in the world.  Hard to believe, but sometimes bad people do bad things.

    We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

    by DH from MD on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:34:43 AM PDT

  •  One point that I think gets lost... (37+ / 0-)

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this large-scale terrorist attack was thwarted by the British...without illegal wiretaps on its own citizens, without torture, without the invasion of another country.  From what little I've seen on TV (I'm at home with a little kid, he isn't amused by the news), it's starting to get spun into a US victory in the WOT.  It is a victory, but give credit where it's due.  Don't let BushCo rally around this.
    Like you said, the GWOT is not working.  This was the result of intelligence, not war.

    "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."- Emerson

    by Sidof79 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:35:04 AM PDT

  •  The other thing... (9+ / 0-)

    They keep comparing this to a foiled attempt in 1994 where a dozen planes from the US were supposed to be aimultaneously blown up over the Pacific.

    WHAT?

    YOU MEAN CLINTON DID THINGS RIGHT?

    YOU MEAN THAT HE FOILED THIS HUGE TERRORIST ATTACK?  BY AL-QAEDA?  SEVEN YEARS BEFORE 9-11 CHANGED EVERYTHING?

    Doesn't that mean that Dems are the ones who keep our nation safe, and Reddies let planes fly into buildings?

    Hmmmmmmmmmm..............

    -9.50;-6.62. But it don't mean nuttin if you don't put your money where your mouth is

    by ultrageek on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:36:44 AM PDT

  •  There used to be a policy in US government (54+ / 0-)

    that these sorts of threats were not made public UNLESS there was something that the public could do to stop a plot.  If there was nothing that an average citizen could do to change the outcome, they managed the situation and quietly made it go away.  You know why they did that?  Because the primary goal of terrorism is to spread fear and terror - not so much to kill everyone.

    Now we have a policy where this government holds major press conferences and discuss scary terrorists ad naseaum.  I beleive terrorists exist.  I was evacuated constantly from my DC office building after the Africa bombings, but Clinton and Janet Reno didn't hold a press conference every time we were evacuated.  The bomb threats didn't even make the local news.  We were not conditioned to panic and live in fear by previous administrations.  That is my beef today and every day that BushCo reveals another scary terrorist plan.

    If I can't do anything about it, then why make me feel more powerless and scared by making statements like "terrorist plot of epic proportions"?  Why?  If you really don't want terrorists to disrupt peoples' lives, you don't give them power - you AVOID making them out to be the boogey monster - you remain cool and calm and deal with the situation.

    BushCo either likes the fear that their press conferences spread or they are so stupid that they don't understand why every administration prior to them chose not to make any more of these situations than they absolutely had to in public.

  •  adf (8+ / 0-)

    By all reports, the plot was international, well planned, and well backed.

    Some links, please.

    But don't deny the facts on the ground.

    And they are???  Did they have the explosives with them, or just want them?  Did they purchase the tickets already, or just hope to buy them and not show up on the no-fly list?  Did they have all the martyrs in place, or were they still searching?

    IOW...was this a actual plan, a plot, a dream, or wishful thinking?  

    Only after you supply those answers do you have the right to call us "conspiracy nuts" or whatever.

    Republican recruitment for the 82nd Chairborne at an all-time high...

    by topicalstorm on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:38:27 AM PDT

    •  Maybe we should just wait (4+ / 0-)

      for some more information to emerge...

      "It is up to the most conscious member of the relationship to create the space for the relationship to grow." Ram Dass

      by bosuncookie on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:41:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  ok (0+ / 0-)

      here

      I heard about it on NPR.

      Look, I wasn't there. I'm relying on media reports. I don't know the exact level of their preparation. And you know, maybe it was a bunch of amateurs who weren't even close to pulling it off (though I doubt it). But that doesn't change the fact that it was an invention of the Bush administration.

      •  i mean (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phil S 33

        wasn't an invention...

        •  freudian slip n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluesteel

          "It's time for America to get REAL." -- Matt O. [http://thegreatsociety.blogsome.com/2006/04/26/its-time-for-america-to-get-real/]

          by billlaurelMD on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:12:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  funny how that works, isn't it? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Molly Martinez

          I mean, it's not as if:

          1. Every word to emerge from the Bush administration has been a lie, a cover-up, or a weaseling to cover-up a lie.
          1. Everything that we've actually investigated vis-a-vis the Bush administration has turned out to be a criminal conspiracy far worse than our worst imaginings.
          1. Tony and Duh have gotten together repeatedly in the past to "fix" their story for their own political advantage.
          1. Bush just lost his favorite traitor in the Democratic party.
          1. Public opinion is falling down around the usurper's ears on everything he's put his hand to.

          Oh, wait... that's exactly what's happened.

          Bring the Troops Home. Restore Constitutional Government. Take Back Your Nation.

          by khereva on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:13:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I won't deny it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Molly Martinez

            But unless you think Bush orchestrated 9/11, you'll admit that Al Qaeda is real and in all likelyhood trying to come up with a follow up.

            •  those two aren't mutually exclusive (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Oy the Billybumbler

              Yes, Al Qaeda exists. And yes, Bush has certainly manipulated eveything but the actual attacks themselves, about which I'm withholding judgment-- bearing in mind that:

              Everything that we've actually investigated vis-a-vis the Bush administration has turned out to be a criminal conspiracy far worse than our worst imaginings

              Bring the Troops Home. Restore Constitutional Government. Take Back Your Nation.

              by khereva on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:33:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Hear, hear! (n/t) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Bouwerie Boy
  •  GREAT diary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, Buddha Hat, darrkespur, DrWolfy

    Terrorism is REAL.  And we must fight it at all costs.

    George Bush, however, has failed in that mission--Iraq has distracted us from the real threat, which is Al Queada.

    Democrats have the tools and credibility to fight terrorism, protect the country, and make the world safe again.

  •  Timing of Alert Stupid if Conspiracy (8+ / 0-)

    The time to have sprung it was Monday or shortly before, to nudge the US primaries in the right direction.

    Or else spring it later for greater influence over the Fall elections.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:39:09 AM PDT

    •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

      While the GOP is still going to try to use this to make hay, if they had actually staged this, Monday evening, before the Tuesday print deadline would have been the time to do it.

      This is a conincidence that the GOP is now going to try to milk for whatever they can get out of it. But to even suggest it was planned out is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 04:06:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmm. I remain neutral (10+ / 0-)

    After 2004, a lot of folks were bitchslapped hard in threads about being such tinfoil-wearing moonbats.

    They don't look any too tinfoily any longer.

    I prefer to remain neutral.  Unlike the media, I want sources and facts.  I guess that's what makes me a liberal though; we all know that facts have a well-known liberal bias.

    •  I have yet to hear or see any media reports (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, Cake or Death, darrkespur

      that leave open even the tiniest room for doubt that this alleged plot was anything other than exactly what the British authorities have said it is. Pathetic.

      •  Pathetic? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        supersoling

        Skepticsm is the only way to view news.

        It's pathetic that so many take so much on faith.

        Remaining neutral until facts are in is only sane.

        First reports are rarely accurate, and never complete.

        Did you really expect good governance from those who scorn government?

        by Job52 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:19:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Operative words: media reports (0+ / 0-)

        Do you trust ANY media?

        I don't, not even in the UK.  Who owns the media there?  Is that ownership substantially different from the media here?

        I still haven't seen corporate media in the US that clarified the Joe2006.com hacking situation, either; there was a snowstorm of coverage on election day, but nothing substantive since except for what TPM (a non-official media outlet) provided.  The current snowstorm of coverage isn't much different in profile.

        Both Israel and Hezbollah have set out to conduct cyber-war in online media and other outlets, according to reports in Times-UK online, if you can believe them.  We do know for certain that Rendon Group, Lincoln Group, SyColeman and others have been contracted for the purposes of manipulating media coverage of the Iraq War (whether that is limited to overseas media and the Iraq War only is questionable).

        I prefer to wait for more and other sources before making any judgment at this point.

        •  TV & radio news in the UK (0+ / 0-)

          comes mostly from the BBC and ITN.

          ITN is owned 40% by ITV, and 20% each by Reuters, Daily Mail and United Business Media.  

          The BBC isn't owned by anyone.  It's licensed to broadcast by Royal Charter and funded by the public via a mandatory fee (about £120 per household).

          Not to say they get everything right or aren't subject to political pressure (esp the BBC, who rely on the govt to renew their charter). But they're mostly independent from corporate control and their style of reporting is different from US news as a consequence.

  •  The timing is always so convenient (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joel3000, bobsquatch, khereva

    It's incredible how terrorism press releases coincide with an anti-Bush political accomplishment of newsworthy status.

    I don't deny terrorism, but I have to ask if the decision to release this information in a politically advantageous way is harming our security.

    In other words: Is it enuring the public to terrorist threats and warnings? If it keeps up in this way most people will become very skeptical of these reports like the boy who cried "wolf."

    I'm very afraid of that.

    theorist and proud

    by a lynn on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:39:35 AM PDT

  •  DKos Conspiracy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loquatrix, aimeeinkc, Esjaydee

    Hey, I just want to know why there are no front-page diaries here on DKos in the last few hours talking about this...no Kos, no anyone.  Tinfoil hat?  This blog is being censored by the Lamont campaign...Fox News is just WAITING for Markos to say something about this possible terror plot...Rove is BAITING US.  =)

  •  It's a question of how immediate the threat is (9+ / 0-)

    A few weeks back, US authorities proudly proclaimed that a domestic terror cell had been broken.  This cell had "planned" to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, among other targets.

    After the initial crowing about how the president's domestic surveillance policies really worked, and how the government really was working to keep us safe, the truth about this organzation emerged.  The "terrorists" were, to be blunt, idiots.  They were a very loosely organized band of people with bad ideas and absolutely no way of implementing them.  They had no ties to al quaeda, and the only person who pushed the group towards anything approaching terrorist activity or conspiracy was the FBI agent who infiltrated the group.

    When the news announces "terror plot foiled", we get a mental image of men being arrested on their way to the airport, cotton balls and box cutters in hand.  The eventual reality of today's situation may be far different.

    •  if that's your mental image (0+ / 0-)

      i'm not sure which news reports you've been reading. Perhaps it's time you sought out more reputable sources.

      if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

      by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:48:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's an accurate image actually (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobsquatch

        At least for the Miami "cell" Link to NYT story

        They were a kooky bunch of idiots who needed help to get boots.  Not that a kooky bunch of idiots can't do harm, it's just that these guys were stopped well before they were actively dangerous.  I'd argue too much so.  IANAL, but I have doubts about any convictions on this.

        If you have sources that say these were more than a bunch of misguided idiots who may well deserve to be in jail, but fall far short of the classification or "terror cell", I'd love to see it.

        •  the OP was generalising (0+ / 0-)

          I agree about the Miami "cell". Though, however incompetent they may have been, i would suggest that it is newsworthy, nonetheless. Remember that Richard Reid may have come perilously close to murdering hundreds (actually, i have no idea how many were on board—sue me for sensationalising, heh). And the "Beltway snipers" certainly didn't come across as particularly clever, though they managed to have quitre a run.

          if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

          by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:39:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobsquatch, voter for sale

      And one of the Miami "terrorists" had actually been to Chicago, which proves that an attack was on the way.

      I believe almost nothing my Government tells me. This entire War On TerrorTM is nothing but a con designed to keep the power structure intact and make billions of dollars for the well-connected -- all while keeping 300 million Americans shaking with fear. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      Terrorism is a tactic, not a country.

      Maybe someone in our "media" will inquire today why launching pre-emptive war in Iraq and killing 100,000 people didn't stop the cell in Britain from plotting this.

      The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

      by IndyScott on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:14:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hello? (23+ / 0-)

    Kudos to the Brits for discovering this (if it turns out to be bunk later, we can crticize).  Start thinking smart people... this type of POLICE ACTITIVITY is exactly what is needed to fight terrorists.... not unnecessary and wasteful wars in Iraq.  Our resources and people should be focused on these threats not Iraq.  Al Queda still roams the earth to plot these very sophsticated terrorist acts.... meanwhile we are spending a trillion on a place that has  nothing to do with terrorism.

    Democrats need to turn this around, and frame it properly, and very quickly....

    KEY PHRASE:  Al Queda still is strong despite the war in Iraq, as Dems we will shift our focus to this, including cargo screening on planes and port security.    THe war in Iraq is doing nothing to stop al Queda and is a distraction and waste of resources that could be used to stop al Queda from getting this far.

    •  Absolutely. (5+ / 0-)

      This is a time for our guys to get out in front of this.  Where is Hillary's statement on this issue?  About "Senator Elect" Lamont?  Reid?  Pelosi?  Dean?  How about our current senator from CT, Joementum?

    •  I would recommend this a trillion times more... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhantomFly

      Excellent!

      Did you ever wonder why they announced it "in air," and "en route?"

      The idea that they're on their way to US cities but we can't do a thing about it is counterproductive to the alert system. It only makes maximum impact of the threat/scare, and does very little for the solution/security.

      They should stop monkeying with the alert system and save it for times we can make a difference.

      Playing ncompetent political monkey games with really serious matters is one of the reasons I want these animals out of office.

      theorist and proud

      by a lynn on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:30:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you... (6+ / 0-)

    bluesteel,

    You're 1000% correct.  If someone wants to complain that Bush will try to make political hay over this - saying, "see, we've still got a war to fight", fine... though I suspect Dems will also "use" this to say, "see, look how many terrorists are still running around; and we're winning????".  But to suggest that this was all choreographed is just idiotic.  While I'd put nothing past the Bush Administration (so, yes, I suppose ANYTHING is possible here), you're first point is the most important... The terrorists DO exist and DO want to kill.  So, a plot like this is entirely realistic and plausible.  As such, unless someone has hard evidence, conspiracy theories are stupid and, quite frankly, Rovian (just like we all pulled down Lieberman's web site).  I'd hope we're all a little better than Karl Rove.

    sdrawkcab gnihtyreve od snacilbupeR

    by Pilgrim Paul on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:44:15 AM PDT

  •  Thank you thank you thank you thank you (9+ / 0-)

    I'm always scared to read Kos on days like this, for just the reasons you detail.  Usually Kos does a good job of kicking out the drooling "Loose Change" crowd, but some always pop up on days like this...

    •  Drooling, Loose Change (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluesteel, theadmiral

      hah.

      Not nice to talk about our friends that way. I mean, give them a break. Bush has whacked us all in the head enough times that it's bound to loosen up anyone's change.

      Nevertheless, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I was disappointed at the tone of many of the posts this morning. Felt like it went from loose change to loose bills fluttering around.

  •  Thanks for the injection of sanity, Blue. (5+ / 0-)

    You're my boy!
    ...or girl...
    whatever.

  •  Olbermann (9+ / 0-)

    Olbermann did a long analysis of how these terrorist threats are SOOOO convenient, always occur when Bush needs them most.

    I really don't think it's "conspiracy" to believe these folks manipulate the terror "threats" to their end.  At this point and with all the past history, I think it's just common sense.

    I only hope this leads Democrats to re-open questions about why we're spending terror money protecting pig farms in Kentucky.  That will be the ONLY benefit that comes from what I think is probably a manipulation tactic.

    •  People want to believe (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobsquatch
      We have a lot of sheeple who are easily scared, then they turn that to righteous furor on those of us who are gimlet-eyed.

      Just like the Miami plot, they probably blew this ring up early, and when the real story comes out, it will be the sad story of some-dead enders who were just trying to make a buck off some FBI/Mi5 sting. A set-up, just like we are being set-up this morning.

    •  And let's not forget Tom Ridge (4+ / 0-)

      who admitted that the color-coded terror alerts in 2004, during election season, were completely bogus. completely. He said he was ordered to give them and disagreed because it would water down any real threat if it occurred. He was voted down.
      I'm not saying the threat isn't there, but there are better ways to deal with threats than confiscating breast milk and toothpaste.

      All Truth is non-partisan

      by MA Liberal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:06:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Timing is everything. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Esjaydee, CTLiberal

    Last time Israel invaded Lebanon, Al Qaeda and Hizbollah were created, I wonder what will be created this time.

    by mattes on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:47:07 AM PDT

  •  Ah, fresh air (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, keila, theadmiral, ignatz uk

    I was first off surprised about seeing the news when I got up this morning. Then surprised at the lack of recommended or front page diaries on the topic when I logged in this morning.

    But then disappointed at the tone of the ones that cropped up.

    I understand. This administration is frustrating to the point of insanity.

    Thanks much for this balancing post. I was afraid I was actually going to have to try and write one myself.

  •  One and Four... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfflyman

    I agree with.  Two and three?  You're gonna have to show a little proof.

    No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

    by CrazyHorse on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:47:36 AM PDT

    •  you're joking, right? (6+ / 0-)
      1. Not all reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else.
      1. Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared.

      Have you no conception at all of what has transpired in the past couple of hundred years? Are you simply refering to the current maladministration? Even then, i think you're well off base. Go tell it to the families of those who have been slaughtered these past few years.

      if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

      by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:55:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which slaughtered? (7+ / 0-)

        9-11 victims, Iraq war victims, Lebanese and Israeli war victims?  Not sure I follow.  I'm cynical about these matters because if you look at the way Bush and the MSM USE even legitimate threats to national security, it's always done to maximize the terror, not alleviate it.

        Compare and contrast Bush's post 9-11 speech with the post Dec. 7 speech of FDR, or Bush's Iraq invasion speech with Clinton Kosovo action speech.  Face it, man, they want us scared.

        No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

        by CrazyHorse on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:15:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Remember, you're either with us (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hhex65, libnewsie

          or with the terrorists

          "We didn't take on this huge burden not to have significant, dominating control"

          by SoldiersInRevolt on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:38:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  'they want us scared' - no kidding (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          station wagon

          I was not questioning the motives of those who use the "news" to put fear into the the nation's consumerscitizens. I was questioning your seeming disbelief that there have ever been anything like a "terrorist attack". That, to me, would seem to be awfully ignorant.

          And, even if you are refering to what has occurred on Mr Danger's watch (which i specifically asked you to clarify) it would seem to me to be the height of ignorance to pretend that there are not people out there who have been conducting "terrorist" operations. Are you denying that they happened, or what?

          Your original statement suggests that you do not believe any of these events have occured (or, that you think The Man is responsible for them all).

          if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

          by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:47:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hardly... (0+ / 0-)

            My original statement merely implies that I am skeptical that these events have played out the way we were told they played out.  And there's ample evidence of that having happened before.

            No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

            by CrazyHorse on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:44:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, OF COURSE they're overblowing it (0+ / 0-)

              No kidding. But that has got SFA to do with the point here: whether the entire thing was some show put on in order to take people's minds off how bad things are going for the maladministration.

              Go tell it to MI5 and Scotland Yard. I'm sure they'd love to hear your theory that this was just some fancy they dreamt up to take the heat off Mr Danger as a result of the Lieberman defeat.

              Face it: there are people out there who do this shit. Sometime they are caught, and sometimes not, before they can cause mayhem. That this occured smack dab in the middle of a bit of a black eye for Bush (again) might just be a coincidence. We all know by now that these shitheads can't go a week without having a fire of their own making to put out.

              I keep thinking back to the first few hours and days after the attacks on NYC & DC, and remember how everyone seemed to be fixating on the idea that none of it seemed real, that it "was just like a movie". It's really fucking sad how so many people seem to have gone right back into that mindset. I don't mean you, personally, and i don't mean it as an insult. It's just that so many people seem to be so eager to believe that everything follows some kind of script or something.

              Maybe we should call it "You Choose the Ending" syndrome.

              if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

              by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:30:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  reporting (6+ / 0-)

        There are posts above that say this better, but reporting the terrorist plots does have a purpose.  Since the point of terrorists is to terrorize, the goverment making a big deal out off all the twarted attacks is to keep people scared and cover things up is a suspicious.  If the the only goal was security and safety, they wouldn't report every averted attack.  Reporting it is done solely to frighten us and is a political tool.  In a very real sense they are helping the terrorist win, by deliberately scaring the american people.

      •  remember the Anthrax scare? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adigal, libnewsie, kestrel9000, lightfoot

        Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985)

        by hypersphere01 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:59:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was in the Anthrax Scare (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          subtropolis, station wagon, kck

          I was walking around the Hart Senate Office Building, it hadnt been closed off that morning, I walked right past Daschle's office. Had to wait on line for hours to get Ciprio.

          I have a hard time believing it was some ultra secret conspiracy. It was most likely some winger nutjob behind it, but the larger story was it showed how unprepared our government is for a biological weapons attack.

          I sat in on meetings of Congressional staff afterwards with Tommy Thompson, it was clear he had no frickin clue. Its just a matter of time before some rightwing nutjob (either Al Qaeda or McVeigh like) repeats it on a larger scale.

          So, while the media shouldnt become tools of fearmongering, sometimes fear can be the right impetus to action, especially when action is called for. We need to retake the presidency so we can take the focus off of Iraq and violating people's civil rights and onto retooling our homeland security infrastructure.

          •  well, no one has a frickin' clue (0+ / 0-)

            It would seem the investigation has been quietly shelved. And, at the time, Thompson—like everyone else—was pretty much at a loss as to protecting against "military-grade" death by mail, considering the vector can so easily be changed (in the food supply, etc). A situation that continues.

            Not that i want to give the guy a pass or anything. I doubt his operation is very efficient.

            I'm thinking of writing a diary about the investigation, actually. If you know of any info that might be helpful, please post some links.

            if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

            by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:40:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I havent really followed the investigation (0+ / 0-)

              for the last couple of years. I know they practically named that one winger nutjob as a suspect and drained his lake, but werent able to find anything.

              I think you're right, the investigation has probably been quietly shelved. The problem of biological terrorism however has not gone away

        •  yes, i remember it well (0+ / 0-)

          And i'm not sure what you're getting at. If you feel, like the others, you're in disagreement, please note the "Not all" part of those two points.

          Oh, and do elaborate. The Anthrax Affair gets far too little attention, i feel.

          if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

          by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:33:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  My husband was injured from 9/11 (16+ / 0-)

        so you can tell it to me. Just because we have suffered from terrorism, does not mean that our cerebellums have been removed, making us incapable of critical thinking.

        I agree with the post that you will have to prove to me the following:

        1.  Not all reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else.

              3. Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared.

        There has been so much disinformation, so much fear-mongering, so much crying WOLF that I actually chuckled to myself this morning, saying to myself and my husband: "Here they go again.  Iraq and Lebanon are going badly, gas is going up, and Lieberman lost, so here comes the cries of 'terra'."
        We both kind of chuckled over the transparency of it all.

        My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

        by adigal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:03:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

          Let me get this straight:

          Your husband was personally, directly affected by the events of 09/11/01, and you still have a problem with those points made by the diarist? I think you should go back and re-read them more carefully. The point being made is that NOT ALL of the reporting is bullshit, used to put fear into people. That is, SOME OF these reports ARE VERY SERIOUS, INDEED.

          We are NOT questioning that the govt. and others have used the threat of terrorism for their own ends.

          If you still have a problem with that, try catching the next plane to Baghdad and let me know in a couple of days if you still think all of this is simply fear-mongering.

          if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

          by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:53:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am not getting the connection (10+ / 0-)

            If you still have a problem with that, try catching the next plane to Baghdad and let me know in a couple of days if you still think all of this is simply fear-mongering.

            OK, let ME get this right.  Because there is an insurgency and civil war in Iraq, I should not question my government about an alleged plot, of which they cannot tell us if the alleged terrorists  even had any bombs, and cannot tell us anything about these evildoers??And what does taking a plane to Iraq have to do with any of this?? Is is just a red herring you are throwing out to muddy the waters??

            Please.  Stop living in fear, and start thinking. WHY did Osama bin Laden show up on a video two days before the last presidential election?? Who benefitted?? Bush. Cheney.  Who will benefit if the govt scares us all now??? Bush. Cheney.  

            I know better than most that there are evildoers out there.  I just question this particular terror report. Blair is not called "Bush's Poodle" for nothing; he would do anything to help his buddy, Bush.

            My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

            by adigal on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:17:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  logical fallacy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              station wagon

              You seem to be missing the point here in a big way. What we're trying to suggest is that the fact (and i do believe it is a fact) the shitbags have been using the fear of "terror" to manipulate the electorate does not then prove that all other reports of "plots" are bogus.

              OK, let ME get this right.  Because there is an insurgency and civil war in Iraq, I should not question my government…

              I've suggested nothing of the sort. Question every damned thing they say. But try to keep a firm grasp on reality while you do so.

              …about an alleged plot, of which they cannot tell us if the alleged terrorists  even had any bombs, and cannot tell us anything about these evildoers??

              They arrests were made last night. Don't believe the cable news outfits' claims to "bring you news as it's happening". I'm sure they're all begging for more info from the British authorities (who are probably loathe to say much more—an unfortunate consequence of doing police work sometimes).

              And what does taking a plane to Iraq have to do with any of this?? Is is just a red herring you are throwing out to muddy the waters??

              Not an attempt to muddy the waters, but to point out that, yes, there really are people out there who spend their time figuring out ways in which to kill people in spectacular fashion.

              Please.  Stop living in fear, and start thinking. WHY did Osama bin Laden show up on a video two days before the last presidential election?? Who benefitted?? Bush. Cheney. Who will benefit if the govt scares us all now??? Bush. Cheney.

              You're preaching to the choir here. Nevertheless, my point still stands: there is a possibility that these people arrested in England really were planning to blow up planes over the Atlantic. And that pooh-poohing the reports as so much Rovian bullshit is to be ignorant about what is happening in the world. It also gives that particular bogeyman far too much credit (yet again).

              I know better than most that there are evildoers out there.  I just question this particular terror report.

              Then perhaps i am also preaching to the choir here, somewhat. But then, that wouldn't explain your first reply to my comment, would it?

              if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

              by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:12:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Adigal states she has first hand experience (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stodghie, adigal

                How can you upbraid adigal with good conscience when she tells you that her husband was injured as a result of 9/11?  Are you a bit eager to be indignant here.

                Looks inappropriate to me for you to be telling her how to act/react to terrorism news when she has already had personal experience.  

                Sometimes we get just to full of ourselves and our own need to make certain points and that makes it impossible for us to hear our own voices.

                Consider taking some deep breaths and rereading the thread carefully.

                Peace,
                PaintyKat

                I donated to ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

                by PaintyKat on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:07:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  perhaps you should re-read it more carefully (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  adigal

                  I happen to have enough respect for adigal—whom i've been recommending here for quite some time—to refrain from "upbraiding" her. Everything i've written here i did quite calmly, thank you. And, yes, i did take it into consideration her husband's involvement with the attack, as i'm sure was her intent.

                  But we're still ignoring the main issue here, aren't we? IMHO, it seems to me that the people who keep insisting that there is no threat from Bad People With Bombs would be more of an irritant to someone like adigal (if she will excuse my generalisation). I guess that was my point.

                  And i'm always breathing deeply, thanks.

                  if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

                  by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:11:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I agree that there are those who want to kill us (0+ / 0-)

                    but I disagree with the premise that we should trust all reports from your government. So I think we agree more than disagree, and I apologize if I misunderstood you.

                    Peace.

                    My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

                    by adigal on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 07:09:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Perhaps I need to heed my own advice (0+ / 0-)

                    and take some deep breaths while I re-read here because it looks like I might have misunderstood.

                    I think the major irritation for me and it may well not apply here is that it seems some Democrats and/or progressives have bought into the Bush admin fear and I hate to see us be tools for those bozos.

                    Yes, it is quite possible bad people might attack us, just as they did with the first attack on the World Trade bldg and the attack on the USS Cole.  Many Americans barely took note of either of those events and I just hate to see any of robbed from living a full life, unhampered by irrational fears.

                    Guess it is the hold we allow the right over us when we submit to their scare tactics that frustrates me.  And please understand that I don't mean to minimize anyone's loss on 9/11 or any other event.  While I can never know what New Yorkers experienced that terrible day, I work with a young mother who husbands was killed on 9/11 and she moved back to Kansas which was her home.  My friend refuses to submit to fear and she empowers herself by working against the Bushies.

                    Peace,
                    PaintyKat

                    Thanks for your patience

                    I donated to ePluribus Media. Support citizen journalism!

                    by PaintyKat on Sat Aug 12, 2006 at 01:58:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Some more facts for a 'conspiracy theory': (19+ / 0-)

    (according to news reports, that is...)

    1. The British knew about this for months, hence the speed and number of arrests, etc. (the investigation had been pursued by British authorities "for some considerable period of time")
    1. There was a co-ordinated effort yesterday by Tony Snow, Ken Mehlman, and Dick Cheney ('Vice President Dick Cheney . . . went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage "al Qaeda types."') yesterday to scare the American public about the possibility of another 9/11 (if Democrats get elected yadda yadda yadda)...
    1. The US terror alert system has been seen as being used for political purposes in the past--it has never been raised to Red, though, which is where it is now, at least for some flights, although "at this time there is no indication of plotting in the U.S."
    1. The US and the UK are close allies, and have been in close contact in recent days (Bush and Blair talked about this last night)...
    1. We don't actually know that this was 'al-Qaeda', but Chertoff says that the plans were "suggestive of an al-Qaida plot"
    1. We're lucky the British were on the job... (GAO on airport security in the US)

    So, all that having been said, do you have any questions about the precise timing of the bust, vs. the co-ordinated messages yesterday? Could someone be 'playing politics with our national security' here? Conspiracy theories, anyone?

    •  as a number of people have pointed out (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Harkov311, theadmiral

      if the timing were somehow manipulated, wouldn't today be a strangely ineffective choice?

      •  Maybe so, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobsquatch

        But note the other half of my statement--relative to the timing of the administration's statements yesterday. Even if the bust is entirely on the up-and-up (although it wouldn't surprise me if the US could have influenced the timing of the bust by at the least a day or two in either direction), that doesn't mean that the statements weren't co-ordinated, or made with foreknowledge of this news release. At the least, that's something obvious to consider here.

        •  My take, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pb, bobsquatch, GN1927, GeauxGeauxGirl

          for no other reason than that's how it looks, is that this was a genuine threat.  They had been watching them and got some indication that today might be the day.  Apparently, very early in the morning, UK airports suddenly all freaked out.

          That said, the administration is milking it for all it is worth, and then some.  And I'm sure they were informed that this was being watched, and I'm sure they did plant a few phrases here and there that they could point to when it all came to light.

          There's a headline on MSNBC right now about Bush using this to show that, "we are at war with Islamic facists."  From what I'm hearing, we are "at war" with a bunch of disillusioned socially somewhat outcast British men of Pakistani descent, from the "wrong side of the tracks."  So are we, then, really "at war" with poverty?  With racism?  Chew on that Georgie boy.

      •  I think the timing is just right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hypersphere01

        I don't think they wanted Lieberman to win, they wanted Lamont to win.  They want to be able to say that Dems are far-left and out of the mainstream and that anti-Iraq war is the same thing as allowing more 9/11s to happen.  They could give two shits about Holy Joe - they need someone to throw all their bile at if they're going to be able to run on the Get Scared platform again.
        I'm sure there was some kind of plot, but I'm just as sure the timing and the method of the announcement were politically motivated.  The two are not mutually exclusive.  
        How will we know?  Well let's just wait and see how/whether they connect Ned/anti-war movement and terrorism.  I know how I'm betting.

  •  The diarist is pathetically naive. I challenge. (9+ / 0-)

    "1) Terrorists genuinely exist and are trying to kill innocent people, regardless of anything done by George W Bush."

    First of all, George W Bush is indisputably the world's worst terrorist.

    Lesser terrorists target the US mostly not regardless of, but because of everything done by George W Bush.

    "2) Not all reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else."

    Yes, you are correct, not "all reporting on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else." But in the US corporate-owned media, the vast majority of reporting is exactly for that purpose.

    "3) Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared."

    Once again, this applies not to all reporting in the corporate-owned media, but to the vast majority of reporting. Probably 95-98% by my estimate.

    "4) The thwarting of a major attack is genuinely newsworthy."

    Good, let's make some news by thwarting Bush and Cheney's next attack on America!

    •  challenge accepted (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Harkov311, theadmiral, GeauxGeauxGirl
      1. That GWB is a terrorist does not refute that terrorists exist.
      1. & 3) If you think 95-95% of the media is designed to scare people and cover up legitimate news, you are wrong.
      1. ok.
      •  Paraphrasing muddies the issues. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        supersoling

        "1.  That GWB is a terrorist does not refute that terrorists exist."

        I obviously didn't bother to refute the fact that "terrrorists exist". Why would I?

        I called your attention to the ultimate terrorist and how he incites more terrorism against the US by lesser terrorists.

        "2.  & 3) If you think 95-95% of the media is designed to scare people and cover up legitimate news, you are wrong."

        How lazy. Pretty much all the reporting done on terrorism by the corporate owned media is designed to scare people and cover up the legitimate news.

        You can go watch CNN, MSNBC and FOX if you don't want to face reality.

      •  94%? (0+ / 0-)

        Once we've sat through another story about another 2-year-old golf prodigy and all.

        REPUBLICANES EUNT DOMUS

        by PanzerMensch on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:30:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you 'Fist' for saying that !! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fist of the North Star

      Right on brother. For many Americans, the Truth hurts. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. are great at "projection," (i.e., attributing to other nations, peoples, and races their own malignant characteristics). It is one of their most precious devices. If you are constantly labelling other nations and races as "terrorists" very few will  stop to ask if maybe you are a terrorist.

      The best defense is a good offense as far as BushCo are concerned. In fact, this goes beyond Bush and his cronies. Most U.S. Presidents and their administrations have over the last 50+ years participated either directly or by proxy in the most brutal economic and militaristic TERRORISM on the globe. This is a fact. If one does the research it is actually quite chilling.

      So, unfortunately you are correct Fist ("George W Bush is indisputably the world's worst terrorist"). Although I'm sure that most folks here don't want to hear what you and I are saying.      

  •  Took the words right out of my mouth. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, theadmiral, HenryM
    Recommended.
  •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, HenryM

    Thanks bluesteel for the wake up call...the last thing we as a community need is to be painted as conspiracy theorists on a very real and very dangerous issue.

  •  Here's my take (17+ / 0-)

    I haven't seen any of the diaries this morning about the British announcement so I can't comment on them. If people are claiming this is related to Lieberman's defeat, then they should be ignored.

    However, I came to dKos to write a diary to the effect that the British claims should be treated with skepticism. First, because they've produced no actual evidence. All reports I've seen are vague in the extreme. The most specificity I've found is this from the BBC:

    According to BBC sources the "principal characters" suspected of being involved in the plot were British-born. There are also understood to be links to Pakistan.

    BBC home affairs correspondent Andy Tighe said police sources had told him they had found "interesting items" which were being examined.

    That amounts to nearly nothing in the way of evidence. Larry Johnson may be right, the Brits may have been given a lead about a 'plot' that didn't quite exist, or perhaps a false lead.

    In any case, the Blair government has a terrible record of reliability in accusations about terror plots they've disrupted. Remember the Menezes killing, and the bizarre lies the UK government told for more than a day about how he was a terrorist?

    More recently, UK police invaded a house and shot one of the inhabitants for no good reason, arresting two in what was described for about a week as a terror plot. Police insisted that they had decisive evidence. Even as doubts arose that the police had screwed up, Blair again declared he was 101% behind the police. As I predicted at the time at my blog, that was a good indicator that there was no real evidence against the two. A day later, they were released without charge, and the police admitted that they'd gotten it wrong.

    These are just two of the most obvious examples of the politicization of terror 'plots' under Blair.

    Furthermore, the UK Home Office and the Home Secretary, John Reid, have been under intense criticism for months for failing to maintain basic standards of law and order. The charges against Reid are so many that they would require a diary to sketch out, but he's widely seen as a bungler. In the last few weeks in particular, the pressure on him has been most intense.

    Like his predecessor (sacked for bungling law and order issues), Reid has attempted to portray himself as a hardliner when it comes to criminality. Just a few days ago, he announced that the Blair government was going to introduce yet further legislation to chip away, again, at civil liberties in the name of facing terrorism.

    Reid used the announcement that this airline plot was broken up to underline the need for that legislation, to attack those "who don't get it" about terrorism, and to portray himself and his (incompetent) Home Office as having scored a major success. Besides that, Reid has made highly rhetorical statements about the scale of the disaster that would have happened had not the government broken up this plot: "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

    All of that is quite apart from the intense criticism that Blair has faced in the last weeks over his failed policy in Lebanon. In the last two days, MPs have demanded that Parliament be recalled to debate the government's Lebanon fiasco.

    None of this is to say that the allegations about the plot are definitely fake. It's simply to argue that the Blair government has no credibility when it comes to such statements, and so far they've produced nothing like evidence to support such extreme claims.

    •  On Reid's political problems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      I don't think I'll bother now with that diary on the state of UK politics and the Blair government's record of terror allegations.

      But to get a sense of John Reid's problems as of a few weeks ago, this article in the Scotsman is good.

    •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hypersphere01

      And let's not forget that Tony Poodle's government has been proven to bend over backwards to accommodate the Bushies. Aren't they the ones that supplied on the forged Niger documents and a "dcoument" plagiarized from a student's thesis  as "evidence" of Iraq's "WMD program"?

      Astonishing how these things are never discussed in the MSM when something like this happens.

      A good amount of critical thinking is necessary if we are not to give in to paranoia and mass hysteria.

    •  Bastard (0+ / 0-)

      Well written and argued.

      You've just nudged me to the 'wait and see' category.

      •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

        but do a google news search for "John Reid". There are so many articles from recent weeks about his political problems that you'll get bogged down slogging through them all.

        I read several UK papers daily and already had a good sense for the more important scandals and embarrassments related to Reid. But going back through the recent media reports stunned me about how much I hadn't been paying attention to. At some stage I just got tired of reading about John Reid's stupidities, and stopped paying any attention to him.

    •  The mass murder quote was not from John Reid (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smintheus, GN1927, joanneleon

      BBC:

      Metropolitan Police Deputy Commissioner Paul Stephenson said the alleged plotters had intended "mass murder on an unimaginable scale".

      "We are confident that we have disrupted a plan by terrorists to cause untold death and destruction and to commit, quite frankly, mass murder," he said.

      That which does not kill us makes us ill and bad-tempered

      by ignatz uk on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:19:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't forgot the phoney Ricin plot (0+ / 0-)

      National Security Notes

      The trial of the infamous "UK poison cell," a group portrayed by Secretary of State Powell as al Qaida-associated operatives plotting to launch ricin attacks in the United Kingdom and in league with Muhamad al Zarqawi in Iraq, found nothing of the sort. The jury did find "the UK poison cell," known as Kamel Bourgas and others (Sidali Faddag, Samir Asli, Mouloud Bouhrama, Mustapha Taleb, Mouloud Sihali, Aissa Kalef), not guilty of conspiracy to murder by plotting ricin attacks and, generally speaking, not guilty of conspiracy to do anything.

      -7.75 -6.46 ...be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. ~ Carl Sagan

      by andrewinscotland on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:02:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My Guess Is. . . (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Petronella, khereva, voter for sale

    We'll hear that these terrorists were specifically targeting American citizens heading to Montana, Nevada, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia.

    Oh, and Connecticut, too. That one just made the list.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:51:58 AM PDT

  •  conspiracy theories (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie, SoldiersInRevolt

    take our focus off what our government REALLY is doing.

    Let's have real investigative journalism again, please.  The kind that isn't combed out by PR reps before it reaches us.  

    I read some where that there are twice as many PR people on the staff at major newspapers as journalists.
    And that in some journalism schools, public relations training is now part of the curriculum.

     

    "Let us not be conservative with compassion. Be generous with compassion."

    by ilyana on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:53:48 AM PDT

  •  pawns (4+ / 0-)

    Pawns, It"s news because look, its being reported.  How sad.

    well as I said before one thing for sure, AL Queda never needs to spend billions on an ad agency or media buy.  My god our governments and media give those bastards the greatest exposure and hype any product could hope for.

    Talk about aiding and abetting the enemy...

    "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."- Gandhi

    by voter for sale on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:55:26 AM PDT

  •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    potownman

    Do you think it was fair to add 'meta' to the tags on this diary?

    I think we should wait for a few days until we get more facts and then we can know if it is another one of those trumped up miami-terrorist type stories.

  •  The point about all of this terror alert business (5+ / 0-)

    is that if this is a legit. potential danger, it certainly wasn't thwarted by a war in Iraq or a war in Lebanon.  It was stopped by police/intelligence and cooperation between two nations.

  •  Every time we hear about al-Qaeda (17+ / 0-)

    our response should be "Why did Bush fail to capture Osama bin Laden and instead invade Iraq?"

    Bush fails to keep us safe. We have to do better.

    Live the questions. - Rainer Maria Rilke

    by Kimberly Stone on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:56:08 AM PDT

  •  bluesteel (3+ / 0-)

    I think bluesteel is in on the plot.

    Whackos get their info thru the Christian right. We'll bring them out to vote against something and make sure the public lets the whole thing slip past them.

    by chemsmith on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:57:26 AM PDT

  •  You are falling for it.... (10+ / 0-)

    ..how many of these 'major, breaking' stories about terrorists, especially when the US steps right in to comment and extend it to the US, turn out to be overblown..and play into the hands of BushCo?

    You will see: BushCo will be saying '911 911 911 911' from today until November, just as in the run up to 2004.

    Time will tell if this latest story was about 'asipirational' groups or actual active ones.  

    So far, this falls into line with the BushCo agenda to '911' the public into another terrified season..until the election is over...when it will suddenly be quiet again.

    I wish we could be equally terrified of not having a US democracy, terrified of outsourcing, terrified of a lack of border security, terrified for having no health care.  

    We are such a cheap, gullible date.

  •  3) Not all reporting about terrorism designed to (3+ / 0-)

    "3) Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared."

    No, but there hasn't been a single attack since 9/11 that hasn't been trumped up or turned out to be utterly false.
    ..skeptisism is warranted here.  And it's sad that it's come to that.
    That you would have the gall to tell everyone to basically just trust what we're hearing in light of the last 6 years...well...it makes YOU sound like the Republican.

    ...and don't even get me started on the anthrax attacks.  ANYONE with a half functioning brain can see that, perhaps unlike 9/11, those were an "inside job".

    •  um, 3/11; 7/7; 7/21? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Meteor Blades, Harkov311, keila

      Bali, Morocco...

      I could go on. Terrorism is a serious threat. That's why we need a serious leader.

      •  The difference is that (0+ / 0-)

        Those were realized attacks (not 7/21)

        The reason I mentioned the anthrax attacks was pretty obvious, so don't go there.

        But these "foiled" plots more often seem to amount to nothing at the end of the day except for the police having a reason to pat themselves on the back.
        ...and, of course, scare the living shit out of people.

        •  I think this one is real. (0+ / 0-)

          The UK shut down all domestic flights.  It's total chaos at the airports.  They're starting to worry about people getting hurt in the crowds.  They wouldn't do that just to help George keep us scared.  Let him make up some stuff domestically for that.

          •  if it isn't (0+ / 0-)

            how do you think you will respond to the next alert/situation?  that is the problem i see with this.  

            on a side note, if these guys are innocent, their names and faces are plastered all over tv as terrorists.

            damage is already done.  due process and all that we used to hold dear for protecting us from well ourselves/government is gone.

            Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating. --Brazil (1985)

            by hypersphere01 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 01:45:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You've seen their names and faces? (0+ / 0-)

              That has to be recent.  Until an hour or so ago, the UK government was being very cautious about what information it released, and it wasn't releasing much.

              If it is or isn't, I will respond the way I always do, by seeking out more information, and then, usually, deciding it's b.s.  In this case, the information I obtained led me to conclude that it's probably not b.s.  

    •  thanks for the reminder on anthrax (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      Thom Hartmann, hardly a left wing looney, always points out with respect to the anthrax attacks that the two people in Congress who got the stuff were Tom Daschle and Patrick Lehey, who had control over the Patriot Act going before the Senate.  Apparently, before the anthrax attacks, they were inclined to hold it up for more scrutiny; afterward...um...not so much.

      "It's time for America to get REAL." -- Matt O. [http://thegreatsociety.blogsome.com/2006/04/26/its-time-for-america-to-get-real/]

      by billlaurelMD on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:26:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Furthermore, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tankej, annrose, bobsquatch

    This attack is further evidence that we need a competent and effective global counterterrorism effort.  The only party able to deliver such an effort is the Democratic party, and rational people are already aware of that fact.

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:58:45 AM PDT

  •  I am paranoid and powerless (5+ / 0-)

    Tonight at 11:30pm, I have to fly. There's no reason to think that out of the thousands of flights today, mine would be targetted but I think the availability heuristic has kicked in. I have to tell you that when I read the headline on CNN, my heart sunk to my stomach, I got a sense of dread and fear.

    I became frustrated, wishing for anything to eliminate this threat. Anger at terrorists behind this set in. I immediately accepted the conclusion that removing liquids from carryons is an effective way to combat this, knowing full well that there are yet a million security holes -- I assume such explosives cannot be detected in suitcases.

    I have long considered it my civic duty to not be afraid of terrorists and terrorism, to allow rationality and law to prevail, but today I'm feeling irrational. The government's reaction hasn't done much to alleviate this.

    Now I understand why the politics of the last few years have played out the way they have.

    •  If you're flying from a US airport, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, ignatz uk

      all you have to worry about is delays, cancellations, and that you will not be allowed to bring anything other than your wallet on board.

      This plot was against airlines flying out of the UK into the US.  I'm guessing out of Heathrow or possibly Gatwick, by the reactions in the UK.   So unless you're travelling out of the UK to the US, on one of United, Continental or American, you have nothing to worry about.  You wouldn't have had anything to worry about even if they hadn't stopped this.

      Don't overreact, that's what the repubs want.

      •  OK (0+ / 0-)

        I'm flying from Seattle to Connecticut on Continental (with a stop in Cleveland) so I guess that it isn't part of the uncovered plot. Of course, it could all be a distraction, and maybe they're aiming for the long lines at the security checkpoints to bomb.  

        Who knows? I agree that I shouldn't overreact, and all I can do is to go on the flight as I would have.

        Unfortunately, I won't have my gameboy to take my mind off of things. I don't really like flying anyhow.

        •  Don't worry about it (0+ / 0-)

          Seattle to CT is not via London, so you're fine.  All the flights from London to the US did fly today, with no problem other than a lot of bored and dehydrated passengers, presumably.

          "They" is a bunch of guys who may never even have been to the US.  It's not like they are going to have random back up plans in cities they've never been to.

          This is what Bush wants.  Go to the airport, have a drink, buy a magazine, you'll be fine.

  •  Part of the reaction (9+ / 0-)

    At least for me is based on my frustration with our continued focus on "terrorism" as if it were a deathly threat to the future of Western Democracy.  I don't like hanging out with that "sky is falling" crowd, and I'm sick and tired of it being the major story day after day...

    Here's some real truth:

    1. Suicidal idiots with bombs do exist, and some of them are actively trying to come up with ways to kill people.  There are plenty of people on earth right now who for some reason or another think some killing needs to be done by them.  Some of them have political goals.  All of them together probably couldn't fill grand central station.  Perspective would be nice here--civilization is STILL more threatened by the thousands of nuclear weapons in the world than by any "terrorists."
    1. Reporting about terrorist attacks has been used in the past for political purposes.  See the Democratic National Convention and various other examples.  What was that bit about "fool me once?"
    1. Really, all reporting about terrorism does seem intent on creating an undue atmosphere of fear.  You are more likely to die in a car or be hit by lightning than die as a result of a terrorist attack; however, we live in fear of terrorists but not of the roads.  We actually listen to people talk about a rag-tag band of guerillas thousands of miles away as if they pose a threat to the US and people claim we're not being goaded into fear?
    1. What's a "major attack?"  If the methods by which we thwart said attacks are so secretive, why announce our success?  Wouldn't it be best to protect our methods for the future?  Hell, wouldn't it make some sense to keep the story out of the headlines as long as possible to continue observing the plotters?  That's how you make connections in a criminal case.

    There are a great number of people out there who don't buy the global war on terror because we see it as it is: an excuse to engage in neo-con fantasies and make perpetual war an idea that people can actually stomach.  I am not opposed to taking necessary steps to combat the threat of extremist killers.  I do not believe a military operation like what Mr. Bush has engaged in is the answer.   I have no sympathy for these suicidal idiots, but I realize they're not much of a threat and can be dealt with more effectively through other uses of state power.

    whoring my blog like it's my job!

    by jjhare on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:59:50 AM PDT

    •  Agreed, except that from what I'm reading, (0+ / 0-)

      all hell broke loose at the UK airports at a certain point this AM.  They had to announce something, it was all to clear that something was very, very wrong.

    •  And if the goal is to truly thwart terrorism, (0+ / 0-)

      why reward even an intercepted plot with this level of attention and new airport restrictions?  

      Excellent comment.

      •  Even on top of that... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobsquatch, GN1927, hypersphere01

        We end up rewarding terrorist organizations every time we mention them in the same sentence with "threat to western civilization."  Right now Al-Qaeda has got to feel like King Shit because they've been able to get the West scared.  A bunch of idiots whose idea of a strategy is "we'll blow ourselves up!! that'll get em!" is now the "greatest threat to western society evar!"

        No, it's not.  They're pathetic and weak and until we bomb civilian populations to defeat them, they're not even popular in their own countries.  They're truly beneath our notice and we make them sound like world-beaters.

        Osama bin Laden wasn't even much of a figure in terrorism circles until the US decided he was enemy number 1.

        But this isn't about "terrorism" per se.  It's about the fervent belief of neoconservatives that America NEEDS an "enemy" to succeed.  The war isn't the goal--being at war is.

        whoring my blog like it's my job!

        by jjhare on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 11:46:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have problems with your frame (6+ / 0-)

    1) Terrorists genuinely exist and are trying to kill innocent people, regardless of anything done by George W Bush.

    No they don't. What you have is a war. One side tries to defeat the other side. And that includes killing civilians.

    If you want peace, then MAKE peace. Fighting for peace  is idiotic. It only creates more war.

    2) Not all reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else.

    My understanding that real serious stuff is kept hush-hush. Anything that is allowed to leak out may be true (in part or in whole) but it is ALSO leaked for a purpose.

    One doesn't exclude the other.

    3) Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared.

    That is the usual purpose. Another is whip them up into aggressive frenzy to suppirt more war effort.  Or divert attention.

    4) The thwarting of a major attack is genuinely newsworthy.

    Certainly, but see (2) above.

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:00:55 AM PDT

    •  a war? (0+ / 0-)

      you mean the "war" on terrorism? Iraq? I don't know what you mean.

      You can't keep something that seriously disrupts international air travel "hush hush".

      Reporting about terrorism may result in people being scared, but it is not the intent (Fox News excepted). My point being the news should be read as a failure of Bush's GWOT, not a reason to stay the course, or whatever.

      •  I think the point most people (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joel3000, Molly Martinez

        are trying to make is that the timing is suspicious.

        I agree.

        I believe there are people that want to hurt Americans, but I also believe that we created them, and create more each day.

        -6.5, -7.59. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

        by DrWolfy on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:10:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what is suspicious about the timing? (0+ / 0-)

          the occupation in Iraq and the war in Lebanon are ongoing an unlikely to stop soon-- what would this coverage be "distracting" the public from thinking about?

          •  From the dismal failure (0+ / 0-)

            of the policies of the current administration.

            It was successful in getting Lebanon off the front page for a while.

            Also - it can be a weak attempt at showing how "strong" the Repubs are on security (even though they had nothing to do with it).

            They can say, "See, there are bad people who want to hurt us.  Keep us in office because we can protect you better".

            -6.5, -7.59. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

            by DrWolfy on Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 03:04:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm happy to elaborate (0+ / 0-)

        The US has been at war against various factions in the Middle East since after WWII and the British preceded us before that.

        For example, removing the democratically-elected Mossadegh was an act of war against the Iranian people.

        Hence it is no surprise that once in a while the other side succeeds in striking a blow.

        As for "terrorism", it is a convenient propaganda label but ultimately a meaningless one, because no matter what definition you use, both sides are usually guilty of it.

        OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

        by Lupin on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:09:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  War? (0+ / 0-)

      we're at war with poor disaffected British men of South Asian descent?   Who knew?  Any plans to bomb East London?  Manchester?

  •  You must (10+ / 0-)

    be an idiot to believe this latest incident was a "conspiracy to help Bush"

    You must be an even GREATER idiot to blindly accept this bullshit.

    All these security agencies are under intense pressure to produce "results". Forged Niger documents, plagiarized thesis, Miami 7, scary aluminium tubes are all shit that happens when people are put under immense pressure.

    If you are a reasonable person, you would question this  latest "revelation" with just as much skepticism as you would question the conspiracy theories.

  •  Conspiracy Theories Weaken Our Credibility! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tankej, Bouwerie Boy

    'During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

    • Testimony of Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission
  •  THANK YOU (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, Bouwerie Boy, Buddha Hat

    Democrats are serious about the War on Terror. All this conspiracy nonsense is deflection from the serious issue and counter to the Democrat Party goals of keeping the United States safe from real and present dangers.

  •  here here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buddha Hat

    It's very real and very frightening.

    One can point out how Bush Corporation has done nothing in the national interest and everything in his super rich and corporate elites interests.

    I think they are just plain ignoring this massive Islamic fundamentalist crazy people movement in so many words.

    http://www.noslaves.com http://forum.noslaves.com

    by BobOak on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:02:36 AM PDT

  •  Two facts: (4+ / 0-)

    (1) Terrorism is real and thwarted attacks are important and newsworthy.
    (2) Bush, the neocons and the Republican party will take every terrorist effort as a political opportunity to scare America in a way that reinforces their grip on power.

    The second point can easily morph into a conspiracy theory, but I agree it shouldn't.  We need facts.

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:02:53 AM PDT

  •  Lack of trust leads to conspiracy theories (8+ / 0-)

    I heard it on Washington Journal this morning on C-span.  Many callers expressed doubt about the timing of this.  The fact that 1/3 of all Americans believe that our government had something to do with 9/11 shows that they don't know what to believe because so many lies have been told to us.

  •  i think poorly of this diary because: (16+ / 0-)

    no particular comment was cited, therefore the insinuation that concern about the manipulation factor is across the board unwarranted

    there is no acknowledgment that we are now in the permanent war described in the book 1984, except the adversary is even more vaguely described

    there is little acknowledgment that in fact the whole of the bush presidency has been based on blank check for a War on Terror that is amporphous, used to attack anyone who opposes administration policies

    there is no acknowledgment or sign of understanding that while we worry about a one in a million chance our plane is getting blown up, the administration has given the green light to israel to drop real bombs on civilians who were not even going to the airport, and actually blowing them to bits, and bombing fishing boats, and bombing escape routes, and bombing rescue vehicles.

    there has to be differentiation between trying to understand what is going on when you are ruled by a regime, the Cheney Bush regime, that is extremely secretive, and irrational ideas, like abduction by aliens.

    Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

    by tamandua on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:03:26 AM PDT

    •  well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elie

      I guess I take all that shit for granted. Of course we're in 1984 blank check GWOT secrecy forever land. But it doesn't mean people aren't trying to blow up planes.

      •  that people are trying to blow planes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927

        i take that for granted

        we already know that they have been holding this information for a long time

        we know that the Cheney regime is spinning, lying, manipulating non stop

        we know that the corporate media are on the same team

        WHY FEED IT?

        i think it is wrong to feed it

        most of the suspicions expressed about the purpose of publicizing this now are reasonable.  i think the far greater danger in this situation is the manipulation of the public mind.  feeding into it does nothing to make us safer from terrorism.

        Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

        by tamandua on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:20:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  see point #4 (0+ / 0-)

          My other point being, news about terrorist plots should not necessarily be feeding the public's fear. It should also be proof that W's GWOT is ineffective, that the Iraq War was/is insanely stupid, and more generally that the GOP needs to go.

          News organizations are not going to all agree to stop reporting it when the government announces the disruption of a terrorist plot. It's just not going to happen. Dems need to capitalize.

      •  '...it doesn't mean people aren't trying (0+ / 0-)

        "...it doesn't mean people aren't trying to blow up planes."

        I guess I take all that shit for granted...

        But still, I can't begin to tell when the "boy" (with the help of his media shills), is crying "wolf" and neither, I suspect, can you.

        What would you do for a Klondike Bar?

        by Sybil Liberty on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:21:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  take the tool away (0+ / 0-)

          Let's assume this whole thing was an overblown farce (which very well may be the case).

          It should be the case that the revelation of a well-developed plot works against the Bush administration. It should stand as proof that Bush is incompetant/uninterested in "fighting terror".

          The boy wouldn't call wolf if it effectively exposed his incompetence.

  •  Pure coincidence? (5+ / 0-)

    Last October, Keith Olbermann compiled a list of 13 terror alerts that were conveniently timed to distract the media from political news unfavorable to the Bush administration.

    Today is another example.  From the few details reported so far, this alleged airline bomb plot is almost identical to the Bojinka plot ten years ago.  The author of that alleged plot, Ramzi Yousef, now resides in the Colorado Supermax.

    Note that the alleged plot is still under investigation and the people arrested could have been picked up anytime.  Why now?

    "Everything's shiny, Captain. Not to fret."

    by rmwarnick on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:04:13 AM PDT

    •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Harkov311

      Why now? You have an idea?

      •  I could be wrong (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sgoldinger

        I could be wrong, but given the track record of politically-timed terror alerts documented by Olbermann, let's entertain the following idea.  The Bush administration wants to underscore its rhetoric about the Democrats (Ken Mehlman says "Defeatocrats") being soft on terror, as evidenced by Lamont's win in Connecticut.

        "Everything's shiny, Captain. Not to fret."

        by rmwarnick on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:20:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  comeon (0+ / 0-)

        come on

        1. big anti war election win
        1. to play on the 911 hollywood release.  You may think this is silly, but to have millions of people see that movie with this Bullshit england stuff in their head plays alot better for the neocons, then theatre goers viewing this 911 movie as more "historic" document.

        Christ how more obvious do you need it to be?

        "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."- Gandhi

        by voter for sale on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:21:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well try these: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hind, nancelot, northofboston

        Iraq's continuing to circle the drain.

        Israel and their northern neighbors are getting to know each other better (and the US and UK are being pressured to actually do something).

        The "neo-con" agenda is being shown daily to be more dangerous than the old Soviets (W and Blair are locked at the hip in this),

        British Petroleum is helping to raise oil and gas prices,

        Tony Blair was again facing strong criticism over policy in Iraq and the Middle East and was facing a serious split in his cabinet over his attachment to George Bush, particularly over the bombing of Lebanon.

        Oh, and there's an election in the US in 13 weeks.

        c.

        2595

        •  my snark meter is way off (0+ / 0-)

          are you serious?

          Iraq will not disappear after this story blows over.

          Neither will Israel.

          In 13 weeks, no one will remember a thwarted plot.

          If they were going to get the timing right, they'd have done it in about 11 or 12 weeks. And I think if they could've, they probably would've, but they couldn't, probably because the terrorists would've pulled off the attacks by then.

          •  I suspect that we'll be throwing away (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hind

            water bottles at airports until Christmas.

            This SHOULD blow away by election day, but you can't overcome the distrust of the electorate with a single alert. I expect we'll be seeing one of these every 2-3 weeks until election day (possibly a little longer if needed for UK consumption).

            I don't expect Iraq to be resolved, but this is mis-direction. It won't matter how many people are being blown up in Baghdad if we're catching them in London, Paris, Toronto, maybe even LA, (I expect that catching a "bad guy" in NY will be to close to home to stomach) because we'll be "winning the war!!!"

            c.

            2597

  •  This story is full of holes! (13+ / 0-)

    Print THAT and tape it to your monitor.  I don't doubt for a minute that there are people out there who are out to get some of us.  They are clever, organized and motivated.  But this story is full of holes because:

    1.) It presumes that airplanes are the only targets and neglects the trains, buses and the produce section of your local grocery store.  
    2.) TIIC act like mixing chemicals together to create an explosion is a novel and sophisticated idea that only Al Qaeda could have dreamed up.  It is extremely easy.  Where have they been in the past 6 years?  Had they never considered this possibility?  (Roll Condi tape where she never could have imagined slamming planes into buildings.)

    There may very well be a plot to cause mass destruction but these bozos are hyping the flight aspect while ignoring everything else.  That strikes me as very suspicious.  They have been wasting our money and haven't done their homework but are quite willing and capable of taking advantage of this situation to milk it for every ounce of political gain they can.  Wake up and smell the isopropyl alcohol.  These guys are prediators.  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:05:21 AM PDT

    •  Really. Train systems everywhere (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hind, Aquarius40, nancelot, GN1927

      are quite vulnerable.  Great points.

      •  train riders (0+ / 0-)

        train riders are more likly poorer than airplane passengers, and if anything is apparent in this nation is we don't give a fuck about the poor.

        Richest nation on earth, One of out every 5 kids living here in poverty, disgraceful.

        "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."- Gandhi

        by voter for sale on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:28:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  On the Northeast Corridor? Not bloody likely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hind

          Train commuters in my area are quite well off.  They work in Manhattan and take the train from picturesque train stations all up and down central NJ.  Then there are the commuters from Long Island, Connecticut and New York.  Lots of wealth ride those trains everyday.  

          -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

          by goldberry on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:56:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You nailed it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nancelot

      "Like the tide is green with algae, and blue with blue-blood fuck-all..." -7.50; -6.21

      by sgoldinger on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:21:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i actually heard some *expert* (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rearlgrant

      or journalist this morning (but can't remember where - had to be cbsradio, or npr, or cnn, all of which i listened to) say that al qaeda always uses planes because they stick to what they know.

      good reason?, f

      •  O, yeah. They NEVER change patterns (0+ / 0-)

        Wouldn't that refute the proposition that they are clever and sophisticated?  Wouldn't really clever people change their methods just to make everyone even more paranoid?  You can't plan to avoid the danger if you don't know where it's going to pop up.  But if it's ALWAYS on a plane, well, you just stop flying.  That's a no brainer.  
        Where DO they find these brain trusts we call commentators?  

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:59:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  like in madrid? (0+ / 0-)

        whoever it was obviously has no idea what they were talking about.  and it isn't as if al-qaeda is a well-integrated organization run by a small clique.  it's a loose affiliation of free-lancers.

  •  Election coming! Orange alert! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hind, freespeech, sgoldinger, d7000

    It's not the arrest or the media attention. It's the orange alert.

    I agree the tinfoil hattery is stupid. But the reason there's an orange alert is that there's an election coming. No other reason.

    •  9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rogue Scoop

      War on Terror, red alert, dive, dive dive. Terror, Iraq, 9/11, al queada, the Uranians have yellow cake from Africa, Terror, Mushroom Cloud

    •  so (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hind

      so now reality is tinfoilery now? So it is crazy conspiracy talk to understand and try to explain to you "genuises" that politicians have staff who MAIN job is to stay on top of news that concerns them, and to squash, strong arm,spin, and/or alter this "news" as deemed necessary?

      Not only politicians at higher levels have this, but also every lobby, organizations, and businesses and they all spend a great deal of "capital" in order to get what THEY want in the "news".

      News just doesn't happen, stories such as these don't just become front page stories on their own volition.

      Do any of you anti-conspiracy people work in a spin room or newspaper?  didn't think so.

      "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."- Gandhi

      by voter for sale on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:18:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agree. THE ORANGE AND RED ALERTS are B.S. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hind, MP Three, Ningen

      Propaganda. Fear Mongering. WAKE UP AMERICA. You are being played for a FOOL. The Cheney/Bush Junta is hell bent on establishing A GLOBAL FASCIST STATE. All under the guise of National Security.

      We've seen the signs. Illegal wire taps. THE FUCKING PATRIOT ACT. IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES. And we need to do something about it. This community is strong, and if we speak out in unison to SAVE OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES and TAKE BACK OUR DEMOCRACY then, and ONLY THEN can we STOP THIS REGIME!  

      WAKE UP EVERYBODY. The Colored ALERTS ARE BULLSHIT.

      It it FEAR MONGERING. The periodic blurps in the MSM about Iran being behind Hezbollah are attempts to lay the ground work for ANOTHER WAR. This time in IRAN. The Cheney/Bush Junta and the corporate elite (Big Oil)are ready to take over the huge oil reserves and natural resources in Iran and take one more step in Global geopolitical and economic domination.

      This is real folks. More of a threat than any foreign terrorist ever was. We don't need to fear foreign terrorists. We have terrorists within our government.  They are running things.    

      •  True even if threats real (0+ / 0-)
        The dangers discussed by Rogue Scoop are real even if the threats are real.

        As I said above, I think use of another's terrorism for your own purposes is itself terrorism, and potentially places us in far more danger than the primary terrorism itself.

  •  Who does 'Bluesteel' work for, and why are they (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bouwerie Boy, Rogue Scoop

    trying to shut us down. Pretty suspicious huh?

    I bet "Bluesteel" isn't even his real name.... WE'VE BEEN INFILTRATED!!!

  •  What angers me (17+ / 0-)

    is that the first thing I thought of when I learned of this plot--Bullshit.

    Why? Because of HOW this administration has used the GWOT as a political tool for themselves. So now I and millions of other ordinary people suspect anything coming from the administration.

    Is terror real? Absolutely!!
    Does BushCo and the Repubs take advantage of that fact? Absolutely!

    What I find amazing...I wake up to non-stop television coverage of this incident.
    Where is the mention of this plot in my local paper (The Oregonian)? Small (very small) page 8 article. Not blazing across the front page..just a mention of the foiled plan.

    Not one mention on television coverage that I saw that this has been in the planning stages for months. The coverage seems to imply that this was a plot foiled at the last minute..that planes could have dropped from the skies. Thats where I call--Bullshit. The British intelligence has been all over this plot for months!!

    So why NOW? Why TODAY?

    Look back through the diaries and remember how many people were predicting that Aug-Sept terror attacks/plans of.

    Tin hat wearer? No.

    Total cynic when it comes to the Bush administration? Absolutely.

    "There comes a time when silence is betrayal" Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by Esjaydee on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:10:35 AM PDT

    •  yes that angers me too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluesteel

      Of all the serious discussions we need to have on security,
      we are having none.  The news coverage underscores this.

      If there is good behind this, it's that there are  workmanlike
      intelligence activites going on, and that the expensive
      quagmire in Iraq is producing nothing.

      We will soon seen the pathetic pagent of Republicans somehow
      linking this to Iraq.

      Turn off your TV's and or else begin shoveling.

  •  At least the official statements out of the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fruitcake, lightfoot

    governments haven't jumped to accuse al Queda. Three years ago OBL would have been featured bythe White House.

    Maybe because now they don't have to, as the MSM will do it for them?

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:11:11 AM PDT

  •  An uneasy feeling (7+ / 0-)

    An uneasy feeling and its expression does not rise to the level of a "theory", conspiracy or otherwise.

    The Bush administration has been to manipulative of its news coverage and the news media too compliant not to be suspicious.

    The fundamental reality is that the "we manufacture reality" bunch has made it difficult to establish what really has occurred and why.

    We respond, not with a conspiracy theory, but with scepticism of almost everything.  Most especially Republican talking points about the wild left and its conspiracy theories.  Have you ever talked to an honest-to-God Bush cultist?  Talk about conspiracy theories!

  •  Responsible Conspiracy Theory (10+ / 0-)

    We must not fail to challenge the corporate-owned media when they dictate the narrative of terrorist-related events.

    How we challenge that may determine whether the United States remains in the grip of terrorist/propagandists, or whether we usher in an era of peace and prosperity for humanity.

    Responsible conspiracy theorists are drowned out by deliberate misinformation campaigns.

    There are active psyops campaigns by Cheney and Rumsfeld's people in the Pentagon, for real.

    This strategic use of misinformation discredits all conspiracy theory, even that which is conservative and reality-based.

    By some estimates, there are 400 CIA operatives who are active in the corporate-owned media.

    Face reality! There is a lot at stake, and putting our heads in the sand like ostriches only makes us willing, passive victims of the terrorists who rule  the United States.

    •  One other point I shouldn't neglect (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Northstar

      The intelligence and political operatives aren't just active in the corporate media.

      They are here on DailyKos, spreading misinformation every day. They're in every major online activist community. In fact, they just might be the same people that established the site!

      Be paranoid or get the fuck out of the way!

    •  Great comment Fist of North (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fist of the North Star

      I agree completely. Anyone who is telling us to outright refrain from discussing these issues is highly suspect.

      You are right that the CIA is involved in complex psychops. They have a long history of infiltrating foreign media and planting propaganda to lay the groundwork for military coups (See Stephen Kinzer's All The Shah's Men).  

      This stuff is very real and we need to be aware of it. Above all, always think for yourself and have and active "bullshit detector."

  •  2004 (9+ / 0-)

    These terror alerts seem to meet the smell test and thus should be heeded.  However, what largely went unrebutted was the disgusting use of a "terror alert" three days after Kerry's DNC acceptance.  It was during the annoucement of that alert, which took Kerry's convention off the Sunday news and repelled any momentum he had acheived, that "I don't-do-politics" Tom Ridge said, "you must understand that none of these emasures would be possible today without the corage and leadership of President Bush in the war on terror."  That's peverse use of terror alerts for partisan gain, and they have themselves to blame for the conspiracy theories they have spawned.  

  •  walk slowly,,,and don't think...... (3+ / 0-)
    IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

    (Next week, POCKETS will be outlawed, and you WILL be required to carry your possessions - and ONLY your NECESSARY possessions - in a CLEAR PLASTIC BAG........)

    That's what will happen if we continue on our current course.

    Sound good to you?

    a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere

    by quinn on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:14:28 AM PDT

  •  We Create Them Over There. . . (8+ / 0-)

    To win elections over here.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:16:02 AM PDT

  •  Excuse me, but FUCK YOU AS LOUDLY AS I CAN WRITE (10+ / 0-)

    That is my opinion and I have every right to post that as well.  I guess if people are less than convinced, then this is Bush's fault for endlessly politicizing the threat of terrorism and the FACT that terror alerts only seem ot occur (or at least INCREASE)around elections.  So it does NOT make anyone "sound like a Republican".  

    Next thing you know you are going to say that we don't believe in the plot to our nations peril, we will have to watch what we say in a post 9/11 world and that we have forgotten the lessons of 9-11.

    Again I say HEARTILY--- FUCK YOU.

    •  WATCH THE FUCKING LANGUAGE (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      northofboston, rmwarnick
    •  fuck you too, mikey (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Harkov311, Slim Tyranny, elie

      Accusing the Bush administration of being behind every terrorist threat in a knee-jerk fashion does nothing-- NOTHING-- to end GOP rule. Just the opposite. So you can take the "fuck you" back, twice.

      •  I didn't realize that you (0+ / 0-)

        such detailed information on how I had accused the Bush administration for being behind "every terrorist attack" EVER!  How did you know?

        The point hidden inside your "superior", finger-waving diary (which I could have partially agreed with) is lost in this exact type of bullshit.  You insinuate that to even question the reality of a terrorist plot is "PREPOSTEROUS!!!" discounting the five years between 9/11 and now of politicization and exploitation of 3,000 civilian deaths and 2700 military deaths.  We don't need some pompous ass trying to stir the terd that some of us have forgotten the very real threat of terrorism simply because we don't shit our pants on cue. Again, Fuck you.

        Can you hear me up there on that pedestal?

        P.S. FUCK YOU

      •  Grow up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobsquatch

        You're both breathing from the same tank of gas.

        It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

        by gatorcog on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:06:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

      For all the bluster you make a very minor point that the diarist doesn't even refute.

      Unless I'm mistaken, your point:

      if people are less than convinced, then this is Bush's fault for endlessly politicizing the threat of terrorism

      I'm assuming that what people are "less than convinced" of is the veracity of this threat. If so, then you actually agree with bluesteel that some skepticism is warranted. (Your point that the rhetorical usage of "sound like a Republican" is unhelpful is also valid.) Yet neither of these points really address the claim of the diarist that CT's are unwarranted and unhelpful.

      •  You are mistaken (0+ / 0-)

        Bluesteel makes no distinction between conspiracy theorists and people who have even the suspicion of the politicization of terrorism by this administration.  Yes I am suspect of terror threats that only seem to come about or at least increase exponentially near election cycles. Ths is a fact by the way, not wild-eyed conspiracy speculation.  And this does not make me a conspiracy theorist.

        It is insulting to slap a tinfoil hat on anyone who believes that Bush has in the past and very likely could in the future or yes even NOW be using color coded alerts, foiled plots, recently discovered Bin Laden tapes, or a can of Raid found in a bunker in Iraq to prevaricate, embellish, distract or otherwise refute scurtiny and/or valid criticism.  

        •  He makes that distinction several times (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Harkov311

          in the comments.

          I doubt there are any who disagree with the fact that the adminstration has no qualms about taking advantage of terrorism related news (accurate or otherwise) for political purposes.

          •  I have read and re-read (0+ / 0-)

            the post.  It still reads to me as insulting. The diarist makes the case too strongly that terrorism is real which I find incredibly condescending, while only tepidly admitting that it gets politicized.  The politicization is far too inetr-connected with terrorism at this point that to immediately conflate actual terrorism with possible conspiracy or fear-mongering does not deserve such a condescending reminder that terrorism is real.  the point could have been made differently.   I responded to him earlier that it was a point I could have agreed with but "sound like a republican" turned me off.

            At the end of the day, I was insulted.  End of story.  And from many other less-vitriolic, intelligent comments in the thread (in contrast to my fuck you in caps),  many people came away with a very similar read on the diary.

  •  Not recommended, and here's why: (19+ / 0-)

    To question the motives and the methods of those who use so-called terror threat news for political manipulation is reasonable. To demand "proof" of dissent, which often takes the form of a question rather than an answer, is not.

    This diary tells us, "believe what you hear."

    In the absence of real truth, the alternative to swallowing the lies often encourages hypothetical thought. But this diary makes the mistake of identifying aggressively speculative inquisitiveness as some kind of fatal political mistake. It's not. We need more of it, and less cheerleading for the deceptive vocabulary ("war" on "terror" etc) the neo-cons have been putting in our mouths and brains for the last 5 years.

  •  Proof we don't need an army (9+ / 0-)

    What this latest foiled terrorist attempt shows, is that we don't need 100,000 troops on the ground to thwart terrorists.  I mean, how many troops do we have on the ground in Britain?  What is needed is good police work, cooperation between the police and intelligence agencies.  Pre-emptive wars are just a way to rob the enemy, and rob the taxpayers of this country by giving billions to those invested in the war economy.  We get their oil, control of their banks, no-bid reconstruction projects, increased oil prices/revenues, and they get the 82nd Airborn!

    •  Bingo. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobsquatch, GN1927

      Absolutely spot on.  

      Also, tackling racial and poverty issues wouldn't hurt either.  These guys were apparently British-born, of Pakistani heritage.  From where the raids were, I'm guessing poor, frustrated, not feeling like part of UK society yet not being totally Pakistani either.  Angry.  Alienated.  And voila.

  •  I asked this in the open thread (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silverbird, voter for sale

    If this terror alert is so real, why is the stock market going up and the price of oil coming down?  

    Not just snark.  I would really like a answer.

    •  Why wouldn't it? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluesteel, libnewsie, gatorcog, ignatz uk

      This isn't a report of a realized terror attack; it's a report of a thwarted terrorist attack. So, I'm not sure why you would expect any downward pressure on the markets as a result. I'm sure the reality of ongoing terrorist plotting has been built into prices for the last 5 years.

      •  if I was buying oil futures (0+ / 0-)

        and thought there might be a serious attack on air traffic, to me it would mean a lot of grounded planes  a la 9/11, and a lot of casual air travel being cancelled... and a slight drop in demand for jet fuel.

      •  If this attack is so thwarted (5+ / 0-)

        why are there folks all over the this country dumping perfectly good shampoo and mouthwash in the bin before they get on a airplane?  Sounds like to me that the attack is kinda, maybe, could be, we hope so, thwarted.  Maybe.

        I tell you what I think is going to happen. Several months from now it will come out that yes there was a real plot but it was nowhere near the operational stage and by blowing the whistle on it too soon, a two year investigation went up in smoke.  They got some of the little fish but the serious operators got clean away and the people they had on the inside covers were blown all because some asshole political hack thought it was time for a terrorist alert.

        I know what you are saying but nothing in the last five years has given me assurance that I can believe a thing these bastards say.

        Sorry if this makes me a terrorist lovin' America hater, but that's the way of it.

  •  Sure there might be some other terrorists (5+ / 0-)

    somewhere who want to hurt America.  But our terrorists, the ones in leadership in the US and the one pulling psyops jobs on us and spreading disinformation, those are the ones I cannot fail to be the most afraid of.  I look at Cheney as see a terrorist.

    So who told you this: By all reports, the plot was international, well planned, and well backed. That's fucking serious. By all reports, the plot was international, well planned, and well backed."  What reason do you have to believe that is the truth given all the previous lies to manupulate public opinion into supporting this war for oil.  What strikes me as serious is how many people there are (like you, and I AM sorry you are fearful) who still think our enemies are out to get us.  Since 2000, I feel it is our own government that is out to get us.  I am going on 63 years old and I can feel how much less freedom there is in this country now and how much bossier and dictatorial our leaders (and employers) are.  Outside terrorists did not do that to us.    

  •  I, Pelonious... (3+ / 0-)

    have nothing but platitudes to offer.  

    To paraphrase the first poster, "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that you aren't being followed."  

    While I acknowledge that there are people in the world who want to kill folks from the West (because they are from the West and are infidels, etc.), I also acknowledge that Bush/Rove/Cheney are VERY invested in making sure that there are no power shifts in this country.  They are, IMHO, as entirely unscrupulous, violent and nihilistic as the terrorists - or at least close to it (if I've overstated my rhetoric).

    I've lived long enough to want to sit through a few news cycles before reaching a conclusion regarding my take on the news event BUT I've also lived through seven years of constant propaganda, cherry-picking of intelligence, lies, and discarded intelligence to know what little regard I have for ANYTHING spilling from the current administration.

    While it would take some orchestration, I also have no doubt that Blair is in much the same political situation as Bush.  

    So, while this may be a terrorist plot, it may also be something akin to what happened with the Sears Tower.  I just don't know.  I do KNOW that this regime has everything to win and NOTHING to lose by unleashing the alerts.  Someday, the reductionists will study the brilliant, pavlovian response that was elicited on a national level by these alerts.  It's almost like the Queen of Diamonds in the Manchurian Candidate.  The alert gets flashed and suddenly George Bush is "...the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life" (for those who know the original version).

    I think that Larry Johnson may have it right.  Maybe there was a plot or maybe there was discussion but does it rise to the level of the hysteria that they are trying to foist on us?  Or does the hysteria itself feed their political purpose?  I'm waiting to see but I have EVERY reason and loads of anecdotal evidence to believe that this has worked for them over and over again (Bin Laden's guest appearance before the election comes to mind.)

    So, in the words of a mid-east proverb I'm "trusting in God but keeping my camel tied."  I believe there is cause for concern but I'm very PARANOID about the need for panic.

    "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

    by mayan on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:22:01 AM PDT

  •  This diary (10+ / 0-)

    doesn't merit diary status, nor does it merit being on the recommended list.  Maybe a post on the open thread.

    The fact is, bluesteel, we are all frankly "terra-ized" out, and considering WHERE the story is coming from it's prudent for us to be skeptical.  Why should we trust ANYTHING out of their mouths?  They politicize everything they can.  They lie about everything, they make shit up just to scare people.

    Yes there's a big bad bogey man out there, but I fear that it is this government, not a bunch of people with hair gel and soda pop.

    Are there terrorists in the world?  Sure, and we aren't fourth graders that need to have that explained to us.  A better question, however: WHO IS FUNDING THEM? WHO HAS SOMETHING TO GAIN FROM THIS STORY AT THIS TIME?  Certainly not the terrorists.

    And I don't like being chastized before the fact or before I've even come to a informed opinion about the issues.  If I want to wear my tin foil hat, I'll thank you not to tell me how to wear it.  :P

    After the Rapture, we'll get all their stuff! Hummingbird's Blog

    by Hummingbird on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:23:22 AM PDT

  •  Does it even matter if it was real? (0+ / 0-)

    To me it doesn't change anything. In fact, the people who did the arresting and such may have believed it was real and were never told it was an elaborate hoax by the government.

    I do want to say this, though. If Bush wanted to take the spotlight off of Lamont, this attack would have been American. It would also have been aimed at something famous and would have somehow involved a white woman in danger. I think we all know that.

    Here's something more: why be so upset about this when people here seem to be so against these "9/11 Truth" people? I'm not for them but if there seems to be a site consensus against them, why all the rukus on this?

  •  i'm all out of pie (0+ / 0-)

    anyone have a slice for this one?

  •  Tom Ridge mea culpa (8+ / 0-)

    We know that outgoing Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge admitted to dubious, even politicized, security alerts.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/...
    http://www.attytood.com/...

    It's not entirely truthful to declare these things "conspiracy theories."  
    There is just cause for reasonable suspicion and scrutiny.

    •  There is a fine line (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theadmiral

      between skepticism and conspiracy theory-esque thinking. Clearly skepticism is called for, but I'm not willing to go through the looking glass just yet.

    •  Very nice vivadissent- (0+ / 0-)

      When we are surrounded with kooks in the oval office, global warming , torture, domestic spying and endless war, we should have the right to question everything they say and do....that goes for their lapdogs as well.

      "We didn't take on this huge burden not to have significant, dominating control"

      by SoldiersInRevolt on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:51:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  many fake arrests in the past (4+ / 0-)

    As for the self-important "terrorism is real" posts, get over your collective selves.  Your advice is about as necessary as telling me how to tie my shoe.

    What do we know about today's arrests?  Very little.  We don't know who was arrested, only that 21 people were.  We don't know whether they had any explosives material, or only had fanciful ideas about carrying out a plot at some time.

    We do know that the measures being taken are disproportionate to the problem as it has been presented to us.  Why were planes not being allowed to land at Heathrow?  Why is it taking hours to clear customs at Stansted?  It seems pretty stupid to clog the airport with passengers who have already landed, if there is an actual fear of a bomb going off in an airport.  

    And what is up with this nonsense about not allowing carry on luggage at all?  I flew out of Stansted just two weeks ago and my carry on bag was X-rayed.  Was that somehow insufficient?  I doubt it.  I think it's just another ultra-paranoid security step designed to make the public cower, similar to not allowing nail clippers on flights.  

    Part of the problem is that the so-called GWOT is, to a great extent, a publicity stunt.  If you simply let the leaders have the stage every time they conjure a threat then the terrorists have won.  

    (And anybody who thinks Blair wouldn't stoop to pulling publicity stunt nonsense is simply unfamiliar with the man.)

  •  I unrecommend (6+ / 0-)

    Too bad there is not unrecommend button. I have been where the news was happening and seen the news reporting. I think questioning the news and the sources of news is the most healthy act that we can engage in. I expect there will alot of fake news manufactured. The first day lies will be front page and the true facts will come out weeks later and be buried.  

    •  It's a toggle button. You can still unrecommend. (0+ / 0-)

      It's not too late!

    •  I also would like to UNrecommend this diary.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet, supersoling

      I would unrecommend this diary or give it a low rating if that option was available... Particularly since some of the writers own bullet points argue against his own request not to talk about conspiracies.

      Look at these two points in the diary:

      1. Not all reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else.
      1. Not all reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared.

      When you say "Not all" you are indicating that "Some" of this reporting is produced to keep people scared and to cover up something else. So now that this person apparently agrees there are sometimes conspiracy type manipulations of terror threats and then we are only left arguing whether THIS particular incident falls into the truthful of "sexed up" version of terror threat. Remember how dangerous Hamdi was?

      •  you can unrecommend! (0+ / 0-)

        Recommend it, then the button changes to "unrecommend" - just click it again. Supposedly this carries some weight as to the diary's popularity, but I'm not sure how.

        "We choose a foreigner to hate / The new Iraq gets more irate / We really know nothing about them, and no one cares." - Barenaked Ladies

        by PhantomFly on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:32:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What you want is a 'Smite this Diary' (0+ / 0-)

      button.  We've been asking for one for a while.

    •   'There are times when the (0+ / 0-)

      climate of the world is good for ethical things, simetimes men trust one another and create good. At other times, it is not so"

      "We didn't take on this huge burden not to have significant, dominating control"

      by SoldiersInRevolt on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 05:40:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The threats appear real enough to me. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, libnewsie

    I happen to be flying to Europe in a few weeks and will return a few days before 9-11, so this is of some personal interest to me.

    Osama likes using anniversaries as exclamation points, and it doesn't surprise me that he would try something aboard commercial airliners.  The British have a better method for tracking suspected terrorists, and after reading some of the articles, it looks like they have done a thorough job.  I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the claims.

    As for the timing of the public release and the elevation of threat levels, I think we all feel based on the ridiculous number of false terror alerts during the 2004 election year that Bush/Rove are capable of anything. I am certain Karl Rove looks at threat information every week and decides how to use it to the President's political advantage.  This one fell into his lap and so he is using it to distract people from Iraq, Lebanon, high oil prices, and Holy Joe.  

    I agree with others who have said that the fact that this threat occurred tells us that Bush's theory of 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' is a load of garbage.  Al-Qaeda has proved for a couple of years now that they can attack anywhere at will and don't require a lot of people or resources to do the job.  What they need is a group of committed followers and financiers, and our attempt to remake the map of the Middle East is just the incentive Al-Qaeda needs to keep the engine running.  

  •  Repeat as Necessary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, bluesteel, bustacap, theadmiral

    i.e., every freakin' day from now to November:

    Furthermore, the story here is that THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR IS NOT WORKING! The thwarted attack is more proof that GWB is doing a "heck of a job" dismantling Al Qaeda. By all reports, the plot was international, well planned, and well backed. That's fucking serious. It is further proof that although the GOP talks a good game on security, they are full of shit.

  •  Of course it isn't proof of a conspiracy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annrose, The Termite

    BUT, as I said in a comment in my diary on the announcement, you can not assume the timing was not tweaked by the political arm.

  •  Don't confuse cynicism w/conspiracy theories (8+ / 0-)

    I made a couple posts this morning that some might call conspiracy because I did question the timing.

    This is cynicism brought on by this administration's lying and manipulation of the media.  The cynicism is warranted.

    I'm not afraid.

    They can't scare me.

    I don't trust them enough for them to scare me.

    I'm not proud of that.  It makes me sad for our country.

    W - all boots & hat, no cattle .75, -7.54

    by Mosquito Pilot on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:30:23 AM PDT

  •  I have a theory... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap

    ...about diaries like this.  The International Mocksist Cabal keeps track of the number of topics there are CT's about and every time a certain number (which shall remain secret) is reached, one of their members posts a diary just like this.  They are secretly attempting to corner the CT market.

    Step 2:  ??

    Step 3:  Profit.

    Teacher's Lounge opens each Saturday, sometime between 10am and 12 noon EST

    by rserven on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:32:14 AM PDT

  •  This type of stuff needs to be HAMMERED by (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie, theadmiral

    Dems...

    It's so damn black and white... they need to start a coordinated chant that the Republicans have done nothing to make us safer, and people are still doing this...

    It's so easy... Everyone needs to say "they haven't protected us"...

    -9.13, -7.79 Adolescent Mooncalves Unite!

    by L0kI on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:32:37 AM PDT

  •  My initial reaction (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet, potownman, hypersphere01

    You are right that terrorism as a tactic is still used- there exist many who would gleefully use it against Americans. And of course you're right that the GWT is as big a failure as GWB.

    The reporting being done on this is cursory; I don't think any solid facts are out there yet- just chaos in the airports.

    I don't consider myself a conspiracy nut at all, but my initial gut reaction upon hearing about this on the radio this morning was "This is a neocon trick designed to remind us why we need political leaders like Lieberman"

    Does my knee-jerk reaction stand up to scrutiny? Probably not. But it's a pretty sad state of affairs in America when so many of us initially reacted to the news this way. We looked it up in our gut.

    Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said: 'one CAN'T believe impossible things.' 'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen.

    by Matthew 24 7 on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:32:37 AM PDT

  •  really a shame that this seems to have knocked (6+ / 0-)

    Kid Oakland's diary encouraging people to start blogs focusing on local races right off the list.

    anybody else who cares to go recommend "a challenge to the netroots" to try to get it back up on the list, here's the link.

  •  Happy trails! (0+ / 0-)

    and thanks for not plaguing us with another GBCW diary.

  •  in my humble opinion... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northofboston, lightfoot

    ...this is all bullshit, and i'll tell you why.

    i fall asleep every night with the tv on. it's probably not a good thing because sometimes when i wake up weird shit's going on in the world, and it can be rather unsettling.

    however, it's quite interesting to be in that twilight stage between the alarm going off and my feet hitting the floor where some things i'm hearing from the tv are filtering into my brain. i've connected it to the level of excitement in the voices of the talking heads.

    since 9/11, there have been numerous times i've awakened and sensed excitement spiking right off the charts. to use a richter scale analogy, i'd say, compared to 9/11 which rated about a 9.2, yesterday's buzz rated about 4.5. today's buzz rated about 8.6. bombings in london and spain? about a 7.

    The radical invents views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them. - Mark Twain

    by FemiNazi on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:34:22 AM PDT

  •  looking down this thread (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightiris, Ti Jean, kittania

    I see some serious denial of reality.

    It's not only counterproductive to having any type of discussion, it's counterproductive and dangerous to the stated goal of this community:

    This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog.

    It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable

    I suggest those who think conspiracy theories are a valid political response need to find candidates that support their assertions.

    Got any?

    •  you do well (4+ / 0-)

      to point out that the reason for DKos is basically to elect Democrats. Oddly enough, this bog does real well on promoting, encouraging, and supporting Democratic candidates., yet drives liberal and progressives off this blog if they....well, I was going to write more, but it isn't worth the invective and vile comments from the well organized fringe of DKos. Though I would like to know of any progressive Democratic candidate that has endorsed the peculiar worldview as shouted out by  the loudest writers on DKos.

  •  The scarey thing is... (7+ / 0-)

    that people can't even trust this government enough to believe them.

    They've lied so much that we have to wonder about their motives, their timing, their priorities, their competence...worry about them.

    That's the concern here.  That so many people are already theorizing and not taking what they're telling us at face value.

    Remember mushroom cloud?
    Remember yellowcake?
    Remember Niger?

    Who cried "Wolf" now?

    HotFlashReport - Opinionated liberal views of the wrongs of the right

    by annrose on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:35:09 AM PDT

  •  Keith Oberman gave this interesting (8+ / 0-)

    report on the number of coincidental "increased threat levels" issued by Homeland security in time relation to news releases that damaged the Bush Administration image. All of these threat levels were raised within days of a bad report for Bush...

    It's fascinating...Oberman gives ten out of thirteen examples of these "coincidences"...

    This is fodder for conspiracy theorists... but it is high quality fodder :-)

    But then how many BAD reports have there been TOTAL for Bush?  If we looked hard enough we could probably find something for every day of his administration....

    This was posted on Mcolley's diary just a few moments ago..

    "Let us not be conservative with compassion. Be generous with compassion."

    by ilyana on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:36:38 AM PDT

    •  the cause and effect relationship could be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet, ilyana

      possible in some cases.

      But the automatic assumption by too many people here that every report of terrorist attacks is yet another attempt to mislead is very troubling.

      Listening to Bush on the radio, what I head in his voice .. he sounded afraid .. perhaps more concerned with the political damage this will cause him than for citizens , but his voice was quavery and he sounded even more unfocussed than usual {hard to do}.

      10 aircraft being targeted would be potentially 2,000+ dead;
      Bush is not prepared to deal with it.

      •  This is the scariest part (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sockpuppet

        Bush is not prepared to deal with it.

        ...

        His primary job is to defend this country, and represent US in the global theater.   His adminstrations bully techniques and blindness has generated more threats, not provided security.  

        "Let us not be conservative with compassion. Be generous with compassion."

        by ilyana on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:12:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Glass half-full analysis... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, libnewsie, lightfoot

    Given your points, the following would also be true from the half-empty crowd (see pts 2 and 3):

    1. Terrorists genuinely exist and are trying to kill innocent people, regardless of anything done by George W Bush.
    1. Some reporting done on terrorist attacks is produced in order to cover up something else.
    1. Some reporting about terrorism designed to keep people scared.
    1. The thwarting of a major attack is genuinely newsworthy.

    For points 2 and 3, if you aren't prepared to say with 100% confidence that "all reporting...", then the above are true. Is it a conspiracy, maybe not, but with Bush/Cheney in office I'm not ready to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    The perfect plan, Is not the man Who tells you, You are wrong

    by dss on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:40:02 AM PDT

  •  What bothers me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BachFan, malickyman

    is that the nuttiest-sounding posts or theories will be quoted by the MSM, making it sound as if that's what all bloggers on the left think, while the reality is that there are real differences of opinion here and a real debate, which is what never happens on the other side.

  •  Read This From Bush Today. . . (5+ / 0-)

    It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America.

    And tell me all of this doesn't have a political component.

    This is Strawman 101. Page 1 of the Karl Rove playbook.

    I don't hate the guy because he's fighting threats against the United States. I hate the guy because he's not fighting threats against the United States.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:44:48 AM PDT

  •  Skepticism vs. Conspiracy theorizing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluesteel, theadmiral

    I encourage those critical of Bluesteel's diary to re-read it and understand that he/she is not advocating that anyone abandon their skepticism of official pronouncements.

    But skepticism is not at all the same as spinning fanciful stories that back up the skeptic's narrative.

    Let's try to maintain a grip on empirically-determinable reality, shall we?

  •  It's not tinfoil hattery, it's common sense.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightfoot, Rogue Scoop

    What exactly have the Bush administration, or any of their surrogates (including England) done to instill confidence in a SINGLE word they say.  This is something they've done before - see Election 2004 for examples, now it's their surrogates turn at bat.  This view doesn't deny the existence of terrorists, I'm just sick of these convienently timed foiled terror threats, that less than one week later, we usually find out weren't any threat at all.

    Check out the trailer for my animated documentary, "Doolittle Raiders", @ http://doolittle.bravenewtheaters.com/

    by tkmattson on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:46:29 AM PDT

  •  It's not a conspiracy if it's true (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie, lightfoot

    It seems very convenient that as world outrage rises against the Israeli action against Lebanon, a terror plot is foiled. Of course this will get all the European nations behind America, Britain, and Israel for the future attack on Syria and Iran.

    I don't see conspiracy in everything but I am smart enough to realize that some things are not as they seem.

    One more thing you fail to realize my friend. A lot of Democrats voted for the Afghanistan and Iraq war. A lot of Democrats supported this war on terror and if the failures of the so called war on terror make Bush look bad, they also make Democrats look bad.

  •  This is a victory in the war on terror (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    libnewsie

    by our allies the UK. Not an indication that it is not working. They were stopped. The threat from Islamists will be there for a long time. Good work by Scotland Yard stopped them this time.

    •  I think the question is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stodghie, libnewsie, malickyman

      Why, after 5 years, are terrorists able, apparently, to recruit British nationals, get international funding, and mount a major operation? I thought we were smoking them out of their holes?

      ...and, uh, where's Osama? If you get my drift.

      •  The question is why did the Brits expose (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stodghie, ohcanada

        this foiled plot the morning after the arrests instead of waiting until they gathered more information from the suspects. They could have increased airport security without explaining the details of the plot. It isn't 'conspiracy theory' to suspect Britain and the US of manipulating the news for political ends.

        This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

        by Agathena on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 12:43:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  apparently (0+ / 0-)

          because they learned knew infrmation recently that scared them into acting. Sometimes law enforcement will rush into something before they feel they are ready when circumstances dictate that it would be the safest thing to do.

          About 20 years or so ago, the police in Toronto were found to have kept quiet about a serial rapist who had been climbing into women's apartments. They had decided, you see, to keep mum, whilst being more vigilant for the guy, given that they knew his MO pretty well. After he was caught, and this information subsequently became known, the public quite rightly villified the police involved in that decision for keeping that information quiet.

          So, that, coupled with the very human concern that people might get killed, probably caused them to decide to roll up the people they knew about, and hope that none of the fliers slipped their nets. That's why Heathrow was such a madhouse today, because they couldn't be sure that any of them made a dash for the airport in order to complete his mission.

          In other words, i'd be willing to bet that MI5 & Scotland Yard were not thrilled to have to jump into this so quickly, but did so because of new circumstances.

          if i make them very tiny, may i have more letters for my sig?

          by subtropolis on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:57:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The war on terror is bullshit (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stodghie, Rogue Scoop, Cat Whisperer

      US and British adventurism in the Middle East is breeding this kind of terrorism, not preventing it. Once again we find a group of home grown terrorists radicalized by US and British foreign policy in the Middle East seeking revenge for crimes perpetrated by our governments in the name of fighting terror.

      If Bush had been serious about fighting a 'war on terror' Al Qaeda would have been destroyed long ago, no troops would be left occupying Afghanistan and there would have been no invasion of Iraq in the first place. The 'war on terror' is a complete boondoggle designed to project US power over the world's oil supply under the guise of fighting terror.

      Just a few rotten apples - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice ...

      by Warren Terrer on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:49:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem with the boy who cried wolf (4+ / 0-)

    I feel like I've had the proverbial wool pulled over my eyes (to continue with the use of over-used metaphors) too many times to accept any news without cynicism.

  •  Cry Wolf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DMiller, lightfoot

    You've seen it in the MSM. DHS played with the threat levels in order to incite fear.

    As someone who has another upcoming trip to Europe (through good ol' Heathrow), I'm glad they are up on things, and completely convinced that the timing of the arrests was political.

    A) Real Threat
    B) Political timing

    Get used to more of this crap until November.

    "[T]hat I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."

    by Heronymous Cowherd on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:49:25 AM PDT

    •  I'm in the same boat (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heronymous Cowherd
      completely sympathetic and totally in agreement!
      •  My Biggest Fear (0+ / 0-)

        is that they'll screw up larger investigations by ignoring evidence that doesn't make them look good, magnifying evidence that does, and closing investigations too quickly.

        It's happened before, not to mention the complete clusterfuck that is the Iraq Fiasco.

        The British are actually very good at this. They have TONS of stuff that makes American intelligence agencies drool, like extraordinary powers, and cameras up the wazoo. This is why it took then just a day or two to nail the subway bombers.

        The difference is that British politics has a long and very, very colorful history of adversarial government that goes all the way back to Cromwell. I have a very hard time ever imagining one bloc getting the kind of power currently being squandered by the GOP.

        If you want REAL entertainment, check out Parliament in session. My favorite is the Prime Minister's Questions. How long you think ol' Dubya would last, even with a wire?

        "[T]hat I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."

        by Heronymous Cowherd on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 03:52:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This may all be true (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, sockpuppet, kittania

    but in times like these we need words of reassurance from our leaders.  When I watched Bush give his brief speech this morning all I heard was terra, war, fear, 9/11.  Maybe this isn't a manufactured story, but you can sure as hell bet this administration will use this latest "thwarted attack" for political purposes.

    •  Ok (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet, Mephistopheles

      but isn't that two different things?

      Argue that they are trying to exploit the tragedy, absolutely, but that is a far cry from saying they are Wagging the Dog.

      And if you turn their exploitation on them by showing that they are failing in the WOT and this is proof of this, so much the better.

      I think that is the point of the diary.

      •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think anyone here is suggesting that this administration has fabricated this story, or any other recently foiled terrorist plot. I think the issue here is the way this administration chooses to spin these revelations. I happen to feel that there is little to be gained in terms of overall security by frightening people. Indeed, the very function of terrorism is to frighten and ultimately victimize the majority by only killing a few, and if you accept that wisdom, by definition the terrorists are "winning."

  •  I don't doubt this is genuine (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blackthorn, lightfoot

    I'm just waiting to see how the Repugs are going to cast it as discrediting the "Democrat" party.

  •  FUCKING THANK YOU! (6+ / 0-)

    I had to go and calm down for an hour after the "Brits are losing their minds" thread.

    Anyone who has even been paying passing attention to the news from the BBC knows that this was indeed a serious event, not an overexaggeration or fabrication. Up to 10 planes filled with liquid explosives in the final stages of planning and execution - there would have been thousands dead. It disgusted me to see people implying that it was all a conspiracy to help fucking Bush out in the mid-term elections. Why the fuck would the British security services do that? They think the guy is a tosser after the Gleneagles security fiasco.

    "In America fundamentalist Christians believe the world was created 6,000 years ago - in England people drink in bars that are older than that." - Steve Aylett

    by Mephistopheles on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 09:55:10 AM PDT

    •  Blair needs a distraction too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobsquatch

      This whole thing is overblown, and just because the media fell for it like a ton of bricks doesn't mean we have to.  The alleged bomb plot is based on the  ten-year-old "Bojinka" plot attributed to Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a life term in Colorado's Supermax.

      The investigation was ongoing, the arrests could have been made at any time.  Why the sudden Red Alert scare?  It only makes sense in a political context.  Maybe the media could start asking questions: for example, why has everybody been allowed to bring liquid containers on planes for the last ten years despite a known threat?

      "Everything's shiny, Captain. Not to fret."

      by rmwarnick on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:08:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I fucking give in. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Harkov311

        Do you have to suspect something in everything? There's absolutely no reason whatosever to think that there was anything engineered about this incident. It has been explained that the reason they didn't make arrests sooner is because they were attempting to find out the extent of the terrorist cell, and because the oncoming execution of the plans took them by surprise.

        Have you ever heard of Occams razor? I think a fair usage of it would lead you to believe the public statement of events is a lot more close to the truth than some silly, useless conspiracy theory about Blair overhyping the problem for - what? you claim that he stands to get something from it. What is that?

        Blair is going to stand down before the next election anyway. The increased threat of terrorism will not make any difference to it, unless we come under some sort of massive, widespread and sustained attack. It could very easily hasten it. He would have nothing to gain by fabricating such an incident.

        You, and the other tinfoil-hatters on this thread, make DailyKos look exactly like what the wingnuts say it is - a bunch of raving, extremist lunatics who would rather believe that their own governments are manufacturing threats than to believe that terrorism actually exists and that it really is a problem. I mean, in your world, I'm sure Britain wasn't attacked a year ago by exactly the same sort of people who are accused today - it was all an exaggeration, right?

        "In America fundamentalist Christ