Great Britain...I applaud you!

[poggy]

No one ever thought they'd ram them into a building. We just never thought of it.

First the Japanese did! They did it in WWII, buildings, ships, tanks, even troops. These run along the same lines, it's a honour to die for the cause. So why wouldn't anyone think about it, after all the most effective weapon is a moving object. Think about it even a bullet is a moving object, so is a car, plane, ship etc...

The problem here was the target, no one thought they go for the twin towers. And why not go for them, they are totally unprotected. Even a fire could destroy them as the fire services keep telling designers of these skyscrapers. They can't effectively fight fires that high!

This brings up another point of why do they build these tall buildings. I mean it's not like the land mass of the US is small and confined is it!

 

[member006]

Nobody in their worst nightmares ever thought that terrorists would have taken things to that level in 2001. The FBI, CIA and CSIS in Canada were preparing for bigger, more frequent bomb attacks. NOBODY was prepared for two jumbo jets to be used as weapons.

Besides these people have so many back up plans it's almost impossible for the worlds governments to keep up. When "plan A" is discovered they switch to "plan B", if that's discovered then it's "plan C". If all else fails then they send in a few suicide bombers. The scary thing is that as the children grow up there's no shortage of people willing to die for their cause.:2 cents:

Well put, I agree 100% and I feel the same applies today. My first instinct upon hearing the great news of the "plan" stopped was "I wonder what plan "B" is?" Does anyone believe there is no plan "B"? Has the thought that such a well thought out plan being miraculously stopped may have a reason it was found out? About the possibility of a diversion? While they are concentrating so hard on baby formula and cologne what are they not paying as much attention to that might slip by? What is being planned on the ground? A sacrifice of 25-30 people lost in this "sting" is small potatoes to these people. So who's to say the loss wasn't planned? I am very scared myself and can in no way breath a sigh of relief. I will give them credit for stopping these plans and am very appreciative, but however am unable to feel safe. Another thought is while everyone is looking for the "big" plan are the little ones slipping by?

You may feel this post is over the top, paranoid and inflated, but please remember its only paranoia if they aren't out to get you.

 

[Red Spyder]

I wonder, they do this because in their twisted, brainwashed mind belive that their cause is just, killing infidels even non-combatants, regardless of whether they support W, they see it as the right thing to do. So their cause must be proven to be wrong, but I just wonder that if that were to happen, that even if Allah himself told them to stop doing that, because of their hatred, and envy for the infidel west in the case of their leaders, would they actually do so?

I don't believe they do all this evil because of desperation, but because they have been indoctrinated since childhood to hate infildels, and here I'm just referring to people like those sick bastards. Now, I just wish that they had resisted and the Brits had been left with no choice but to kill them all because now their trial is coming and that's going to be a forum they'll try to use for their sick cause.

 

[Thunderjet]

Well put, I agree 100% and I feel the same applies today. My first instinct upon hearing the great news of the "plan" stopped was "I wonder what plan "B" is?" Does anyone believe there is no plan "B"? Has the thought that such a well thought out plan being miraculously stopped may have a reason it was found out? About the possibility of a diversion? While they are concentrating so hard on baby formula and cologne what are they not paying as much attention to that might slip by? What is being planned on the ground? A sacrifice of 25-30 people lost in this "sting" is small potatoes to these people. So who's to say the loss wasn't planned? I am very scared myself and can in no way breath a sigh of relief. I will give them credit for stopping these plans and am very appreciative, but however am unable to feel safe. Another thought is while everyone is looking for the "big" plan are the little ones slipping by?

You may feel this post is over the top, paranoid and inflated, but please remember its only paranoia if they aren't out to get you.

This is like the plot that was foiled in Canada a few months ago. That could have been "plan A". It took some time but the plot in Britain could have been "plan B". Now the security forces of the free world need to figure out where "plan C" will occur. Sooner or later they will have another successful attack. Some of these "attacks" could be a diversion for what they are really planning.:2 cents:

 

[Member2019]

Doesn't make sense to me either. The CIA and FBI are paid well to think of those things.

And NASA engineers are paid to prevent launch/recovery accidents. Civil engineers are paid to prevent structual collapses, etc...

Not everyone considers everything -- nor realizes just what's going on until its too late.

If people always thought of everything, it wouldn't take months to investigate all the details of how. We'd know already beforehand and be able to prevent it.

 

[Member2019]

First the Japanese did! They did it in WWII, buildings, ships, tanks, even troops. These run along the same lines, it's a honour to die for the cause. So why wouldn't anyone think about it, after all the most effective weapon is a moving object. Think about it even a bullet is a moving object, so is a car, plane, ship etc...

Modern buildings can withstand a plane impact! Even the twin-towers did.

The problem here was the target, no one thought they go for the twin towers. And why not go for them, they are totally unprotected. Even a fire could destroy them as the fire services keep telling designers of these skyscrapers. They can't effectively fight fires that high!

Not true! It took all that jet fuel burning for more than 15 minutes to melt the superstructure.

This brings up another point of why do they build these tall buildings. I mean it's not like the land mass of the US is small and confined is it!

Because we can. It's the engineering marvel of doing it.

 

[Member2019]

why do I think that all that "we prevented a huge terrorist attack"-stuff is some way to keep people's minds off Lebanon and Iraq,

And one could quickly counter that the entire reason why Hezbolla its combination of moves on the same day the UN Security Council was acting on an Iranian deadline. You can play the "Wag the Dog" game all you want -- just remember to consider all sides. In all honesty, that's why people call me "wishy-washy" or say "ProfV 'won't take a side'." Because when someone throws out one piece of rhetoric or conspiracy theory, I can almost immediately show you what the other side has done in the same context.

Here, people think I'm a W. lover or US lover. If I was on a conservative board, they'd call me a Clinton lover or US hater. It's not my views that are "wishy-washy," it's my views don't match any "common side." That's why most everyone disagrees with me.

another way to justify all the massacres going on,and a great reason to keep up the "terror" madness?The timing is right.

Last time I checked ...

1. Hezbolla wasn't a recognized state with the authority to see Lebanese foreign policy -- which is why UN Resolution 1559 was passed, to disarm a rogue partisan group (notice, I have purposely not been calling Hezbolla a terrorist group in virtually all of my postings) that was instigating conflict in the region between two states that wanted peace over the last 6 years

2. Iraq still lost a war and agreed to terms it did not live up to

Now you can argue all you want about motives, actions, innocent people dying, etc... But maybe you should reconsider that all parties share some blame in the deaths of innocent people. If various Lebanese and Iraqi partisans would stop trying to enforce their will over the rest of the country, and respect the will of the majority of their own country's people -- a lot less people would be dying.

But oh, that's right, the US wants Iraq as a cronie -- just like it now wants to see Lebanon become a cronie of Israel -- right? Get real.

From what I heard,the "terrorists" were British citizens.Why doesn't Blair bomb Birmingham and London? That's what US and UK goverments do in those cases,why not now?

But not of even recent western origin. The overwhelming majority were disgruntled immigrants. France has had the same problem as well, if you haven't noticed.

Even here in the US, we have a masive problem will many immigrants -- virtually all illegal -- committing countless crime and violence.

I apologize for being suspicious,but I don't see why I should believe their story.They've lied so many times in the past,why should they be telling the truth right now?

And various partisans in Lebanon and Iraq are so honest and their intentions benign? Again, sorry to seem "wishy-washy" and "not taking a side" by pointing that out -- but you can point many fingers on that.

I don't "pick a side" -- but I do see many people "taking sides" and their views cause them to consider anything favorable to their argument while dropping anything that is not.

 

[buzus]

It's the goverments that impose their "truth".it's the goverments that decide what is "right" or "wrong","legal" or "illegal",not the so-called terrorist organizations.A terrorist group (if such a thing actually exists) is,by definition, wrong.If you compare the goverment actions to those of the terrorists,then you're simply treating them as equals.I don't believe there are "good guys" and "bad guys".it's not as simple as a hollywood movie,even if we're lead to believe so.
The "they were immigrants" talk is not any good for me.What if they are?what does that change?Brits want to blow Britain up.As the irish did.I never saw the UK bomb the shit out of Dublin.Aren't there IRA terrorists there?Sure there are (were).but they didn't try to wipe the country off the map.Why?
Aren't there ETA terrorists in Bilbao?Sure there are.No one bombed the town,and they have been killing people for the last 20-30 years or so.Why this sensitivity for muslims?
I don't think I ever justified any "terrorist" attack.if I ever wrote sth like that,let me know.But it's so damn easy to justify anything a goverment (whose members live off oil, war and selling weapons) does by saying "the terrorists did this,the terrorists did that".
And who feeds the terrorirsts?Where do they get all their money from?Could it be Saudi Arabia?maybe.Did the US ever bomb Saudi Arabia?No.Last I heard,Osama (where the hell is he anyway?is he soooo hard to find and arrest? ) IS a Saudi.hm...
And who feeds terror?Who gives them things to be angry about?Iraq was not an islamic country,but I fear that the war is dragging the country into religious fanatism.Was that part of the plan?I hope not.
As I said before:the presumed "terrorists" were British citizens.What does Hezbollah have to do with all that?And why would british-born muslims hate their country so much as to want to kill so many people?Is it just their messed-up heads,or is it the country's fault too?One does not just wake up one morning thinking "hey,why don't I massacre 500 people on a plane?that'll be fun!".
If someone hates me,it's not only his fault.I must have done something damn wrong in the first place,right?

 

[member006]

No matter how much we "chew" on it the bottom line is this I feel, they (officials) will only tell us what they want us to know. We will only know anything "after the fact" and it ain't over yet.

We can only pray for the best if you are one that prays, have strong hope that nothing will happen if you aren't and live every day as we always should anyway "To the fullest."

LL

 

[poggy]

Modern buildings can withstand a plane impact! Even the twin-towers did.

Thats why they collasped

Not true! It took all that jet fuel burning for more than 15 minutes to melt the superstructure.

Shows you don't know much about jet fuel, it is so flamable that it burns it seconds. That why the company I work for carry it, all of it has to be complete sectioned off in a steel sealed container. So it was the fire of the materials of the building that melted the superstructure, as I said making it impossible for the fire department. Quote from one of the top fire service in the UK "any building over 10 stories is a nightmare for us. We give it only 20 percent chance of us getting to and controling the fire." This is why they have knocked down all the high rise flat (apartments) in Britain just about.

Because we can. It's the engineering marvel of doing it.

What is marvelous about building a death trap

 

[Imagine]

You don't win wars by killing people, you win wars by breaking their morale. Vietnam would be a good example. The kill ratio was ridiculous, yet the US had to withdraw without a surrender. A conventional war essentially boils down to destroying infra-structure until the opponent no longer can afford to wage war. This is when they either surrender (morale broken), or resort to unconventional warfare such as guerrilla tactics or the type of terrorism you see at work here (morale not broken). Sure, I suppose you would theoretically win by default if you manage to kill all your opponents as well, but the problem there is that when you fight an irregular force, innocent people are likely to get caught in the crossfire. Especially so in the scenario seen in the ME. That tends to make other innocent people turn into not-so-innocent people. Contrary to what some might think, killing entire families, going "oops my bad" and chalking it down to collateral damage ain't gonna help much there.

Basically, I see two realistic ways to end the war(s) over there (and by end, I don't mean go in, set up a government and then get out and blame the civil war on the new government):
1) Extermination. Carpet bomb every inch of the ME, round up the muslims elsewhere in the world, and put a bullet in their head. If you don't make a bunch of enemies in another cultural or religious group, problem should be solved (operative word here being "if").
2) Development. Make the ME a good place to live. Give a person something to lose and he's less likely to risk his life.

Unfortunately, I don't know how #2 can be done (of course, I'm hardly an expert on economics). #1 might happen eventually the way things are going, but that'd just be trading one evil for a considerably greater one.
More likely, I think this so-called war on terror is going to continue for a very long time, with both sides claiming to be the good guys. Eventually the terrorists will get chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and what'll happen then is anyone's guess. It ain't gonna be pretty though.

 

[Roughneck]

But not of even recent western origin. The overwhelming majority were disgruntled immigrants. France has had the same problem as well, if you haven't noticed.

Even here in the US, we have a masive problem will many immigrants -- virtually all illegal -- committing countless crime and violence.

Not to really nit-pcik Prof, but that's not entierly accurate.

Legal immigration to the U.S. soared from 2.5 million in the 1950s to 4.5 million in the 1970s to 7.3 million in the 1980s to about 10 million in the 1990s. After 2000 legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year of which about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever at over 35,000,000 legal immigrants.

In contrast: Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 more illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already here.


I won't comment on the "problem of immigrants commiting crimes and violence". The vast majority of convicted criminals in the US penal system are of United States citizenship and origin.



By I do agree comepletey with you that if we are to be wishy-washy, then we ought to be wishy-washy from both sides

cheers,

 

[ai-ni-ichi]

it's nice to know the security forces over here can still do stuff right. just hope keep up the good work, but it's not simply a case of security and intelligence operations - more has to be done to prevent impressionable young Muslims becoming terrorists in the first place, which is something the vast majority of Muslim community wants and is working towards.

 

[Imagine]

#1 - the US didn't win the Vietnam war, it was a stalemate, with a lot of people dead for nothing...

Yes, uhm, hence why they "had to withdraw without a surrender".

#2 - your solutions are pretty extreme...

Never said they weren't. I said those are the only two viable options I can think of. Never said I approved of the first one either, in case I didn't make that clear.

 

[om3ga]

Fuck that.... i can't even bring a bottle of water on a plane now - What The Fuck?!?!?!?!?!

Get used to it - if we want to safely fly across the world now, we have to accept that some passengers won't bring mere bottles of water onto the aircraft.


From the BBC website:
All cabin baggage must be processed as hold baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports.

Passengers may take through the airport security search area, in a single, transparent plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:

Pocket-size wallets and pocket-size purses plus contents (for example money, credit cards, identity cards, etc - not handbags)

Travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports and tickets)

Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (eg, diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic. Passengers are advised to bring medicines in containers where the seal has not been broken

Spectacles and sunglasses, without cases

Contact lens holders, without bottles of solution

For those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags)

Female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes)

Tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs

Keys (but no electrical key fobs). All passengers must be hand searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must be X-ray screened.
Pushchairs and walking aids must be X-ray screened, and only airport-provided wheelchairs may pass through the screening point.

Any purchases made in departure lounges will be permitted onboard aircraft, with the exception of those flying to the US.

Those travelling to the US will be able to purchase goods for consumption in the airport but no additional items, other than those on the list, can be carried onto the aircraft.

In addition to the above, all passengers boarding flights to the US and all the items they are carrying must be subjected to secondary search at the boarding gate.

Any liquids discovered will be removed from the passenger.

 

[HeartBroker]

*tip o' the hat to the Brits !!

Keep up the good work!

 

[poggy]

Get used to it - if we want to safely fly across the world now, we have to accept that some passengers won't bring mere bottles of water onto the aircraft.


From the BBC website:
All cabin baggage must be processed as hold baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports.

Passengers may take through the airport security search area, in a single, transparent plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets:

Pocket-size wallets and pocket-size purses plus contents (for example money, credit cards, identity cards, etc - not handbags)

Travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports and tickets)

Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (eg, diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic. Passengers are advised to bring medicines in containers where the seal has not been broken

Spectacles and sunglasses, without cases

Contact lens holders, without bottles of solution

For those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags)

Female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (eg tampons, pads, towels and wipes)

Tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs

Keys (but no electrical key fobs). All passengers must be hand searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must be X-ray screened.
Pushchairs and walking aids must be X-ray screened, and only airport-provided wheelchairs may pass through the screening point.

Any purchases made in departure lounges will be permitted onboard aircraft, with the exception of those flying to the US.

Those travelling to the US will be able to purchase goods for consumption in the airport but no additional items, other than those on the list, can be carried onto the aircraft.

In addition to the above, all passengers boarding flights to the US and all the items they are carrying must be subjected to secondary search at the boarding gate.

Any liquids discovered will be removed from the passenger.

This is completely over the top, I'm short sighted and have two pair of glasses. I often carry the pair I'm not wearing with me just in case something happens to the first pair. Now what there saying is I have to carry them loose and most likely scratch the lens or even break them. Also you can't take a book on to read during what could be a 8 hour flight. So what the hell you suppose to do for the 8 hours ?

Soon you'll be stripped searched before you even are allowed onto the plane.

Yet in hold is cargo you don't even know about. Parcel carrier companies often use the extra storage space to carry parcels. Yes they go through the x-ray, but these are the carrier companies x-ray. The security check for their employees is a police report to see if they've ever been in trouble and thats it.

As usual the British go way over the top, but not in all the right places. Put on a great show for the cameras and public, but the unseen part is a real mess.

 

[buzus]

you have a point there Fox!

 

[washingtonyrk]

I would really love to know what these lunatics think they're trying to prove by doing this???

Maybe they are lunatics, but is a War On Terror against an enemy you cannot see and whose grievances you don't understand and don't want to understand any saner?

 

[FullMoonWolf]

Maybe in a way the Nazis thought they were fighting the extremists?