I know the title of this thread is "the UK conspiracy a hoax?", but that very discussion is a waste of time and takes away from the more important discussion of how this administration uses terror threats to justify their ineffective and wasteful foreign policy. It would be different if they were using this trickery to, say, improve our relations in the Middle East.
It's called terror management theory. Cognitive and social psychologists have shown that you can actually make people dumb(er) by scaring them. Look around.
but show me where a sitting president has apologized or admitted mistakes.
presidents are still people. not some absolute monarch. people make mistakes all the time. and by default, the more responsibility you have, the more mistakes you will make. it takes a certain kind arrogance to not be able to admit mistakes. and reflects very poorly on character IMO.
Bush did admitt some mistakes in a press conference with Tony Blair about 8 months ago. Of course, TB was articulate and detailed his mistakes and how he had learned from them. I think all Bush said was that it was a mistake to say shit like "Bring 'em on" and that's it.
hey mr. strawman, show me where i said it was a sophisticated plot or the next 9/11. all i said was banning liquids is a very tiny inconvenience and i don't think a "sophisticated plot" or full-blown plan should be required to make that call. If they had credible intelligence that it was being discussed I think it's a reasonable precaution to take.
strawman...who gives a shit about not taking liquids on a plane? my point was that it was either a) a hoax, or b) entirely blown out of proportion. the issue isn't whether they had credible evidence that "plots" were discussed, its whether bush and blair are taking something that is either made-up or insignificant, and making us believe that 8/10 could have been worse than 9-11 had they not stepped in.
sorry sabadaba, i didnt know bush was with 37% approval.
i'm not even sure what you mean by that, but show me where a sitting president has apologized or admitted mistakes.
what i mean is that you are obviously speculating on what you don't know. presidents have admitted mistakes...start googling with clinton and work your way back. the theme of his autobiography was how he learned from the mistakes he made.
i'm not even sure what you mean by that, but show me where a sitting president has apologized or admitted mistakes.
what i mean is that you are obviously speculating on what you don't know. presidents have admitted mistakes...start googling with clinton and work your way back. the theme of his autobiography was how he learned from the mistakes he made.
I wasn't aware Clinton was still President in 2004.
hey mr. strawman, show me where i said it was a sophisticated plot or the next 9/11. all i said was banning liquids is a very tiny inconvenience and i don't think a "sophisticated plot" or full-blown plan should be required to make that call. If they had credible intelligence that it was being discussed I think it's a reasonable precaution to take.
strawman...who gives a shit about not taking liquids on a plane? my point was that it was either a) a hoax, or b) entirely blown out of proportion. the issue isn't whether they had credible evidence that "plots" were discussed, its whether bush and blair are taking something that is either made-up or insignificant, and making us believe that 8/10 could have been worse than 9-11 had they not stepped in.
sorry sabadaba, i didnt know bush was with 37% approval.
how would you have felt if they had uncovered the 9/11 plot when it was still at the "let's hijack planes with box cutters" stage?
you said that "no president has ever admitted a mistake", right? you're wrong. google each president with the phrase "i made a mistake". if you still think you are right, i'll present my own evidence.
and your argument about 9-11 makes zero sense. again, the issue isn't whether the uk should have arrested these men (right now its not the issue at least), but whether this plot had any shot of being the next 9-11. i could claim to be able to blow up the entire world (an event which would obviously be larger than 9-11), but if i have no chance of ever doing it, should the papers read "bush saves the world" after i am arrested?
what i mean is that you are obviously speculating on what you don't know. presidents have admitted mistakes...start googling with clinton and work your way back. the theme of his autobiography was how he learned from the mistakes he made.[/b]
you said that "no president has ever admitted a mistake", right? you're wrong. google each president with the phrase "i made a mistake". if you still think you are right, i'll present my own evidence.
and your argument about 9-11 makes zero sense. again, the issue isn't whether the uk should have arrested these men (right now its not the issue at least), but whether this plot had any shot of being the next 9-11. i could claim to be able to blow up the entire world (an event which would obviously be larger than 9-11), but if i have no chance of ever doing it, should the papers read "bush saves the world" after i am arrested?
i guess i assumed that since Bush is currently our president, you had the cognitive ability to realize that i meant it's highly unusual for a SITTING president to admit to mistakes or apologize for decisions. i'm not going to google every president ever, you think it happens all the time, YOU prove it.
i didn't think the issue of this thread was whether or not this was "the next 9/11", because who the fuck knows? I thought the issue was whether or not this was a hoax i.e. made up.
what i mean is that you are obviously speculating on what you don't know. presidents have admitted mistakes...start googling with clinton and work your way back. the theme of his autobiography was how he learned from the mistakes he made.[/b]
Talk about believing a hoax.
Zing!
C'mon, Sab, give the guy a little credit--he probably learned to be more discreet about getting extramarital hummers, right?
i guess i assumed that since Bush is currently our president, you had the cognitive ability to realize that i meant it's highly unusual for a SITTING president to admit to mistakes or apologize for decisions. i'm not going to google every president ever, you think it happens all the time, YOU prove it.
some memorable apologies/acknowldegement of mistakes made in recent history: clinton for lewinsky, reagan for iran-contra, kennedy for bay of pigs.
Hammertime, can you give one example of one time the United States Government (think CIA) has pulled off a "hoax" on the people of whatever country they were working in? It is what the CIA does. It is what MI5 does. It being a hoax on the people and "made up" are two completely different things. The people arrested in Florida sure weren't made up, but are you telling me that wasn't a hoax?
I would like to live in a world where the government doesn't commit henous crimes against it's population and others, but that simply isn't where we live. Wake the fuck up.
Yes this is a conspiracy. They had no skills to make the bombs, no tickets, no passports, no plans, no training and they don't fit the profile.
Yes this is a conspiracy. They had no skills to make the bombs, no tickets, no passports, no plans, no training and they don't fit the profile.
Give up your liberties, not mine.
it blows my mind that 7 days after this became public you think you have the authority or knowledge to say the above. ps what's "the profile"?
and if the last line refers to the liquids ban, i'd rather be safe than sorry. and it won't be permanent, so relax. there are a lot more important (and REAL) things you should be outraged about, like THIS
and this will be my last post on this topic because it's derailing the thread, but I don't believe Kennedy ever apologized for the Bay of Pigs, he just said he was responsible for the decision.
i'd still like to know what you meant by "fit the profile"...
i don't really care if it's 1 against 1 or 10 against 1, that has nothing to do with who's right.
in the meantime i'll refer you back to this:
i have a feeling the people that are crying "hoax" over this are the same people who would be saying it was a conspiracy if the plan had been executed and it came out that there was intelligence that hinted at the possibility of it. there's no winning with some of y'all.
by the way, can you show me where in the Constitution it guarantees the right to get on an airplane without restrictions? thanks!
i'd still like to know what you meant by "fit the profile"...
i don't really care if it's 1 against 1 or 10 against 1, that has nothing to do with who's right.
in the meantime i'll refer you back to this:
i have a feeling the people that are crying "hoax" over this are the same people who would be saying it was a conspiracy if the plan had been executed and it came out that there was intelligence that hinted at the possibility of it. there's no winning with some of y'all.
by the way, can you show me where in the Constitution it guarantees the right to get on an airplane without restrictions? thanks!
hammertime, step away from your keyboard! you mentioned "strawman arguments" before...
- nobody has said a word about the restriction on liquids.
- nobody (at this point) is arguing about the ARRESTS.
I uncovered another hoax. I guess the german chancellor must have pretty low poll numbers too. Well serves them right for joining BushCo. in his illegal war. Oh, wait a minute, did Germany invade Iraq too? I mean, that is the cause of all terrorism isn't it?
The German Criminal Police Office on Friday released images taken from a surveillance camera of the two suspects in the attempted bombing of two trains. Police believe the plot was an attempted terror attack.
The German investigators working on the case surrounding the two suitcase bombs found on trains in Koblenz and Dortmund at the end of July released images obtained from surveillance cameras of two suspects in the suspected terror plot.
The authorities announced that there would be a reward of 50,000 ($64,195) euros for any information which would lead to the capture of the two young men in the grainy photos, who were both described as being from "southern countries."
The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) revealed that the evidence had led to one suspect being identified, but so far they have no details of his background and activities. They warn that the man could still be at large.
Terror attack plot "highly likely" The BKA believe that Germany was being targeted for terrorist attacks and that if the explosive devices had been detonated, their size and construction would have created devastation and death on a scale reminiscent of the July 7, 2005 attacks on the London transport system.
Both of the suitcases discovered on July 31 contained gas cylinders rigged up to an ignition mechanism and had been left in two regional trains which usually run at the height of the commuter rush hour. The suitcases were discovered by rail staff when the trains terminated at the two hub stations. The construction of the devices and the potential impact the explosions would have had suggests a sophisticated plot.
The BKA believes that the planned attack could have been the work of a terrorist organization operating in Germany.
Terror plot "highly likely"
High-ranking security experts told the S??ddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that it was "highly likely" that the suitcase bombs were part of a terrorist plot to attack the German rail system.
Bildunterschrift: Gro??ansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: A German security official with one of the canisters Investigations by BKA engineers revealed that the bombs were set up in a way that simultaneous detonation would have been possible and that they would generate "an explosive force so big that the explosion would have reached the dimension of the subway attack on London in the summer of 2005," a high-ranking security source told the newspaper.
In the London attacks, 52 people were killed and over 700 were injured when suicide bombers struck on three underground trains and a bus.
The main reason I'm suspicious of the latest terror plot is the timing; I don't know how much, if any, criticism Israel was getting in the last few weeks for its actions stateside, but people this side of the atlantic were starting to get very concerned by the amount of air-time dead children in Beirut were getting. The news was dominated by images of civilian casualties, and in England people were getting very pissed-off with Blair for his reluctance to denounce Israel's heavy-handed bombardment (not to mention a few dead UN workers, but when did the UN ever matter?). The latest terror plot was well timed to bring the focus of the media away from dying muslims to terrible, plotting muslims. The kind Bush&Bair prefer. The track-record in the UK of actually charging arrested muslims, I mean terror suspects, has been abysmal. A couple of men who had their premises searched by police invited the BBC to see what had branded them 'terror suspects' - a small garage full of cakes that the police alleged to have been closely monitoring for 3 months. As yet the metropolitan police have yet to charge the cakes with any criminal offence.
Frankly the whole war-on-terror is starting to smell of Emanuel Goldstein (and no, that's not an anti-semetic statement).
right, because an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.
also, finding "bomb making chemicals" says absolutely nothing about the level of sophistication of this plot, neither does "martyr videos". all of the deficiencies that were pointed out by this author are still unrefuted by the evidence.
Comments
It's called terror management theory. Cognitive and social psychologists have shown that you can actually make people dumb(er) by scaring them. Look around.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan05/mortality.html
Rasmussen 08/14 - 08/16 42%
CBS News 08/11 - 08/13 36%
Pew Research 08/09 - 08/13 37% %
Newsweek 08/10 - 08/11 38%
Gallup 08/07 - 08/10 37%
FOX News 08/08 - 08/09 36%
presidents are still people. not some absolute monarch. people make mistakes all the time. and by default, the more responsibility you have, the more mistakes you will make. it takes a certain kind arrogance to not be able to admit mistakes. and reflects very poorly on character IMO.
Bush did admitt some mistakes in a press conference with Tony Blair about 8 months ago. Of course, TB was articulate and detailed his mistakes and how he had learned from them. I think all Bush said was that it was a mistake to say shit like "Bring 'em on" and that's it.
strawman...who gives a shit about not taking liquids on a plane? my point was that it was either a) a hoax, or b) entirely blown out of proportion. the issue isn't whether they had credible evidence that "plots" were discussed, its whether bush and blair are taking something that is either made-up or insignificant, and making us believe that 8/10 could have been worse than 9-11 had they not stepped in.
sorry sabadaba, i didnt know bush was
You can hairsplit all you want Peter, but anything below 50% is pretty fucking bad.
what i mean is that you are obviously speculating on what you don't know. presidents have admitted mistakes...start googling with clinton and work your way back. the theme of his autobiography was how he learned from the mistakes he made.
How did you uncover my true identity?!!?
I'm sorry I just thought I's introduce an actual fact to this discussion.
I wasn't aware Clinton was still President in 2004.
how would you have felt if they had uncovered the 9/11 plot when it was still at the "let's hijack planes with box cutters" stage?
you're wrong. google each president with the phrase "i made a mistake". if you still think you are right, i'll present my own evidence.
and your argument about 9-11 makes zero sense. again, the issue isn't whether the uk should have arrested these men (right now its not the issue at least), but whether this plot had any shot of being the next 9-11. i could claim to be able to blow up the entire world (an event which would obviously be larger than 9-11), but if i have no chance of ever doing it, should the papers read "bush saves the world" after i am arrested?
Talk about believing a hoax.
i guess i assumed that since Bush is currently our president, you had the cognitive ability to realize that i meant it's highly unusual for a SITTING president to admit to mistakes or apologize for decisions. i'm not going to google every president ever, you think it happens all the time, YOU prove it.
i didn't think the issue of this thread was whether or not this was "the next 9/11", because who the fuck knows? I thought the issue was whether or not this was a hoax i.e. made up.
Zing!
C'mon, Sab, give the guy a little credit--he probably learned to be more discreet about getting extramarital hummers, right?
some memorable apologies/acknowldegement of mistakes made in recent history: clinton for lewinsky, reagan for iran-contra, kennedy for bay of pigs.
I would like to live in a world where the government doesn't commit henous crimes against it's population and others, but that simply isn't where we live. Wake the fuck up.
Yes this is a conspiracy. They had no skills to make the bombs, no tickets, no passports, no plans, no training and they don't fit the profile.
Give up your liberties, not mine.
it blows my mind that 7 days after this became public you think you have the authority or knowledge to say the above. ps what's "the profile"?
and if the last line refers to the liquids ban, i'd rather be safe than sorry. and it won't be permanent, so relax. there are a lot more important (and REAL) things you should be outraged about, like THIS
it blows my mind that your mind can be blown like this.
i don't really care if it's 1 against 1 or 10 against 1, that has nothing to do with who's right.
in the meantime i'll refer you back to this:
i have a feeling the people that are crying "hoax" over this are the same people who would be saying it was a conspiracy if the plan had been executed and it came out that there was intelligence that hinted at the possibility of it. there's no winning with some of y'all.
by the way, can you show me where in the Constitution it guarantees the right to get on an airplane without restrictions? thanks!
hammertime, step away from your keyboard! you mentioned "strawman arguments" before...
- nobody has said a word about the restriction on liquids.
- nobody (at this point) is arguing about the ARRESTS.
so then what did this refer to:
Give up your liberties, not mine.
The German Criminal Police Office on Friday released images taken from a surveillance camera of the two suspects in the attempted bombing of two trains. Police believe the plot was an attempted terror attack.
The German investigators working on the case surrounding the two suitcase bombs found on trains in Koblenz and Dortmund at the end of July released images obtained from surveillance cameras of two suspects in the suspected terror plot.
The authorities announced that there would be a reward of 50,000 ($64,195) euros for any information which would lead to the capture of the two young men in the grainy photos, who were both described as being from "southern countries."
The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) revealed that the evidence had led to one suspect being identified, but so far they have no details of his background and activities. They warn that the man could still be at large.
Terror attack plot "highly likely"
The BKA believe that Germany was being targeted for terrorist attacks and that if the explosive devices had been detonated, their size and construction would have created devastation and death on a scale reminiscent of the July 7, 2005 attacks on the London transport system.
Both of the suitcases discovered on July 31 contained gas cylinders rigged up to an ignition mechanism and had been left in two regional trains which usually run at the height of the commuter rush hour. The suitcases were discovered by rail staff when the trains terminated at the two hub stations. The construction of the devices and the potential impact the explosions would have had suggests a sophisticated plot.
The BKA believes that the planned attack could have been the work of a terrorist organization operating in Germany.
Terror plot "highly likely"
High-ranking security experts told the S??ddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that it was "highly likely" that the suitcase bombs were part of a terrorist plot to attack the German rail system.
Bildunterschrift: Gro??ansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: A German security official with one of the canisters
Investigations by BKA engineers revealed that the bombs were set up in a way that simultaneous detonation would have been possible and that they would generate "an explosive force so big that the explosion would have reached the dimension of the subway attack on London in the summer of 2005," a high-ranking security source told the newspaper.
In the London attacks, 52 people were killed and over 700 were injured when suicide bombers struck on three underground trains and a bus.
I can't exactly explain why but I always feel like I'm reading script pages from "They Live" when I read a Z_illa post
The latest terror plot was well timed to bring the focus of the media away from dying muslims to terrible, plotting muslims. The kind Bush&Bair prefer.
The track-record in the UK of actually charging arrested muslims, I mean terror suspects, has been abysmal. A couple of men who had their premises searched by police invited the BBC to see what had branded them 'terror suspects' - a small garage full of cakes that the police alleged to have been closely monitoring for 3 months. As yet the metropolitan police have yet to charge the cakes with any criminal offence.
Frankly the whole war-on-terror is starting to smell of Emanuel Goldstein (and no, that's not an anti-semetic statement).
11 people charged, 'bomb making' equipment & martyrdom videos found. The videos must make a pretty dmaning case against them.
on to the next conspiracy I suppose.
right, because an arrest is equivalent to a conviction.
also, finding "bomb making chemicals" says absolutely nothing about the level of sophistication of this plot, neither does "martyr videos". all of the deficiencies that were pointed out by this author are still unrefuted by the evidence.