Britain Busts up Huge Terror Plot [Archive]

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 03:04 PM

Muslims shocked but sceptical over terror plot

Muslim groups today reacted with a mixture of shock and scepticism at the announcement by police that they had broken up a major terrorist plot to bomb airliners.

Khurshid Ahmed, a member of the Commission for Racial Equality in Birmingham where some of arrests took place, expressed relief that an attack had been foiled.

...

However Fahad Ansari of the Islamic Human Rights Commission said that many Muslims would be sceptical about the police statement.

In the past high profile arrests – such as the Forest Gate raid or the alleged plot to bomb Old Trafford football stadium – had failed to produce any evidence of terrorist activity.

...

He suggested that the raids could even have been timed to distract attention from the criticisms of the British government’s stance on the Lebanon crisis.

Link (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=234403745&p=z344x46x8&n=234404688&x=)

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 03:10 PM

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Terrorists planned to use MP3 players and energy drinks to blow up as many as 10 jetliners bound for the United States, authorities said Thursday.

A senior congressional source said it's believed the plotters planned to mix a "British version of Gatorade" with a gel-like substance to make an explosive that they would possibly trigger with an MP3 player or cell phone.

CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/us.security/index.html)

Shiiitttt....terra is going McGyver on your ass!

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 03:13 PM

ABC: Three Alleged Ringleaders ID'd

Three of the alleged ringleaders of the foiled airplane bomb plot have been identified by Western intelligence agencies involved in unraveling the plot.

Two of them are believed to have recently traveled to Pakistan and were later in receipt of money wired to them from Pakistan, reportedly to purchase tickets for the suicide bombers.

Sources identify the three, who are now in custody, as:

--Rashid Rauf

--Mohammed al-Ghandra

--Ahmed al Khan

ABC News blog (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/abc_exclusive_t.html)

DarkReign

08-10-2006, 03:13 PM

Shiiitttt....terra is going McGyver on your ass!

:lmao
True or not, that shit was funny.

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 03:17 PM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan intelligence helped British security agencies crack the terrorist plot to blow up U.S.-bound aircraft, a government and an intelligence official said Thursday.

The intelligence official said an Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago provided a lead that played a role in "unearthing the plot," that helped authorities arrest suspects in Britain.

A senior Pakistani government official also said Pakistan had helped thwart the plot and added the British government was fully aware of Islamabad's role.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_britain_terror_plot_1)

IceColdBrewski

08-10-2006, 03:20 PM

He suggested that the raids could even have been timed to distract attention from the criticisms of the British government’s stance on the Lebanon crisis.

Somehow I knew you'd be the first to quote something like this. Suprised you didn't put it in BOLD :rolleyes

cheguevara

08-10-2006, 03:23 PM

Wait till these dumbass terrorist decide to move on from airplanes to something else, then we're screwed

Oh, Gee!!

08-10-2006, 03:23 PM

kudos to the brits

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 03:44 PM

Well, there goes the exploding Gatorade theory:

The suspects arrested in an airline bomb plot in Britain on Thursday had planned to conceal liquid or gel explosives inside a modified sports beverage drink container and trigger the device with the flash from a disposable camera, ABC News reported on its Web site.

The network, citing U.S. sources, also said five additional suspects in the airline bomb plot foiled by British police were still at large and being sought.

"The plotters planned to leave the top of the bottle sealed and filled with the original beverage but add a false bottom, filled with a liquid or gel explosive," ABC said. "The terrorists planned to dye the explosive mixture red to match the sports drink sealed in the top half of the container."

REUTERS (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-10T192005Z_01_N10145992_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN-USA-SUSPECTS.xml)

No comment yet from the Gatorade spokesperson.

2centsworth

08-10-2006, 03:54 PM

Aslam said the arrests in Britain followed intelligence cooperation between Britain, Pakistan and the United States.

Happy to see Pakistan is actively involved.

Spurminator

08-10-2006, 04:01 PM

Man, if I can't take an iPod and a Mountain Dew on the plane because of this shit I'll REALLY be pissed.

Nbadan

08-10-2006, 04:02 PM

Happy to see Pakistan is actively involved.

It's good to see that the ISI wasn't funding this go-round of terra.

01Snake

08-10-2006, 04:44 PM

Its getting to the point where its easier to drive places than to fly.

2centsworth

08-10-2006, 04:47 PM

The similarities to the Bojinka plot leads me to believe a lot of what I've been reading from Peter Lance has a lot of validity to it.

Here are a couple good links: (for the libs, Peter Lance is not a republican)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16795

http://www.peterlance.com/ go to the PL Transcript on the right

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 04:58 PM

So, maybe this has already been asked and answered in this thread...but, if this plot was discovered using SWIFT or any of the other NSA programs the left has been harping on, does it matter that another 9-11 was averted at the theoritical expense of some fourth amendment protection?

I say theoretical because, even though the left has been bloviating on the potential abuses of all these programs, no one has yet to prove they were used to violate anyone's rights.

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 04:58 PM

Its getting to the point where its easier to drive places than to fly.
Try driving to Great Britain.

FromWayDowntown

08-10-2006, 05:00 PM

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-10-2006, 07:07 PM

Yoni, ask and ye shall receive....

a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

The horror! The outrage!! The U.S. shouldn't be listening to anyone, these 24 individuals had their rights to blow up airliners infringed upon by our eavesdropping!

There, saved you time croutons and Dan.

smeagol

08-10-2006, 07:14 PM

I hate terrorists

FromWayDowntown

08-10-2006, 07:18 PM

The horror! The outrage!! The U.S. shouldn't be listening to anyone, these 24 individuals had their rights to blow up airliners infringed upon by our eavesdropping!

Again, they weren't in America; the provisions of the Constitution have absolutely no application to those who aren't on American soil or aren't American subjects. In fact, I'd think that once a person leave American soil, he forfeits any protections that the U.S. Constitution provides. So all of the arguments concerning the illegality of the NSA program have absolutely no application to this circumstance. The British government can do whatever surveillance British law allows; the American government can and should aid in the collection of intelligence for the British government by providing it with information gleaned from sources that do not touch the United States if those efforts comport with British law.

If the United States government wants to listen to conversations between Pakistanis and Brits, it's all good. If they want to listen to conversations between Pakistanis and Americans or Brits and Americans, they should get a warrant.

Ozzman

08-10-2006, 07:19 PM

well....seeing as how my native Canada is not really involved much, I can actually form an unbiased opinion.

personally, I support the Israelis in their campaign in Lebanon. Hezbollah is pure evil along with their supporting countries ie;Iran, Syria, etc.
I know what I'm about to say is quite harsh, but the only thing these people understand is complete destruction.

I think that the U.S. needs to drop a Nuke on tehran, on Damascus, and once we pull our troops out and get out as many of the guys that aren't causing problems, Baghdad. Then, you look Saudi Arabia in the eye and say "are you next??". They'd recoil so fast it'd make ur head spin.

Personally, that is my opinion. You may not agree, you may not like it, you may not even care. But Opinions are like assholes; we all have one and they all stink.

boutons_

08-10-2006, 07:19 PM

smeagol

08-10-2006, 07:32 PM

Who care if the governemnt listens to what I have to say over the phone as long as this practice helps stop only ONE terrorist plot.

Stop crying about it, you lame people you.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-10-2006, 07:37 PM

The very reliable assumption is that such power will be abused. Take a hint from the paranoia in the US Constitution, and multiply it several times knowin ehe lies these Repugs have used to start a phony war and then use that phony war for to advance their own political power and entrenchment.

Jack Bauer, is that you?

No one has yet to prove they were used to stop any terrorist attacks. And because of the profound untrustwothiness of the Repugs, which is their own fucking fault, nobody but self-interested/justifying assholes who gain power and $$$ for the Repugs' political machinations believes the Repugs anymore.

Jesus H. Christ. All politicians are fucking crooked.

Read that again as many times as it takes. If it isn't Republicans abusing power, it's the Democrats.

Fucking get over it you constipated little twit. That's the way things work in D.C., and it doesn't matter what side of the isle you're on.

Quit pretending like it would be any different with Kerry, Billary, or whoever the fuck the donkey party would put in the WH.

Ozzman

08-10-2006, 07:39 PM

"no one has yet to prove they were used to violate anyone's rights."

The very reliable assumption is that such power will be abused. Take a hint from the paranoia in the US Constitution, and multiply it several times knowin ehe lies these Repugs have used to start a phony war and then use that phony war for to advance their own political power and entrenchment.

No one has yet to prove they were used to stop any terrorist attacks. And because of the profound untrustwothiness of the Repugs, which is their own fucking fault, nobody but self-interested/justifying assholes who gain power and $$$ for the Repugs' political machinations believes the Repugs anymore.

This is not a phony war. This is a fight for the freedom of the western world. And, George W. Bush know a HELL of a lot more of what is REALLY going on over there than you do. He also knows more about the mindframe of Terrorists and extremists than you do. Basically what I'm saying, is you don't know much of anything about this war. If you knew anything about it, you would know that this war is serious. The U.S. needs to take off the gloves and kick some ass. Play time is over.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-10-2006, 07:55 PM

Ozz,

YOu've gotta realize, croutons believes that if Kerry were in office the bad little terrorists would leave us alone and be picking daisies in the fields of Afghanistan. Or something like that.

Unfortunately dipshits like him will only get it the unfortunate day when some AQ asshole blows up a nuke in an American city and kills a couple hundred thousand.

Of course even then I'm sure he'll blame 'Bushco.'

ALVAREZ6

08-10-2006, 08:38 PM

I hate terrorists
:tu :tu :tu

By the way, I'm still impressed by your vbookie $.

ALVAREZ6

08-10-2006, 08:39 PM

If any one from my family ever dies from a terrorist attack, I will kill every fucking terrorist on the planet, even if it puts me in jail for life.

Ozzman

08-10-2006, 08:56 PM

If any one from my family ever dies from a terrorist attack, I will kill every fucking terrorist on the planet, even if it puts me in jail for life.

*standing ovation*

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-10-2006, 08:59 PM

If any one from my family ever dies from a terrorist attack, I will kill every fucking terrorist on the planet, even if it puts me in jail for life.

:tu (not to anyone from your family getting killed by a terrorist attack, but to the killing every single fucking one of them no matter the cost)

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 09:18 PM

Since when does the 4th Amendment apply in Great Britain?
So, you're saying people should only be protected from unreasonable searches if that's written down in some constitution and that, otherwise, governments could be free to conduct such searches?

Doesn't that unnecessarily limit our government from possibly discovering a similar such plot in the United States?

How 'bout we apply the reasonable standard of the fourth amendment? How 'bout we say it's reasonable to listen into phone conversation between known (or probable) terrorists outside the United States when they are talking to people within the United States? Huh?

Also, what makes you think the London terrorists aren't, in any way connected or communicating with other terrorists in this country and that, possibly, there was communications between the two that could have been discovered by the NSA Programs? Or that some of the money involved wasn't detected or tracked by SWIFT?

The only way you can continue to condemn the Bush administration is if you pretend global Islamic terrorism is actually just a far-flung, disconnected band of zealous martyrs that don't have a cogent plan and who act pretty much independently.

boutons_

08-10-2006, 09:21 PM

you're outnumbered, Alvarez.

The lasting effect will you getting sodomized in prison.
The terrrorists continue to sodomize the rest of us.

PixelPusher

08-10-2006, 09:21 PM

Wait, I'm confused...isn't the reason we continue to occupy Iraq is so we can fight them "over there" there instead of "over here"? :rolleyes

Guru of Nothing

08-10-2006, 09:23 PM

What's the big deal people? It's as if going to heaven sooner than expected is a bad thing.

Get your priorities in order!

boutons_

08-10-2006, 09:24 PM

"The only way you can continue to condemn the Bush administration "

bullshit. the dubya and his motherfuckers are condemnable on many fronts, damn near all fronts.

ALVAREZ6

08-10-2006, 09:27 PM

you're outnumbered, Alvarez.

The lasting effect will you getting sodomized in prison.
The terrrorists continue to sodomize the rest of us.
I could start an underground army or just hire some good hitmen.

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 09:31 PM

Wait, I'm confused...isn't the reason we continue to occupy Iraq is so we can fight them "over there" there instead of "over here"? :rolleyes
Yeah, you are confused.

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 09:32 PM

What's the big deal people? It's as if going to heaven sooner than expected is a bad thing.

Get your priorities in order!
Exactly Amadinejad's position.

Guru of Nothing

08-10-2006, 09:34 PM

Exactly Amadinejad's position.

He must have been listening to Black Oak Arkansas too.

PixelPusher

08-10-2006, 09:43 PM

Yeah, you are confused.

fine. For those of you too dense to recognize the subtle sarcasm of that post, I'll make it elementary school simple for you:

"What does our current occupation of Iraq have to do with preventing al Qaeda from carrying out terrorist activities against the U.S. and western Europe?

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 09:49 PM

fine. For those of you too dense to recognize the subtle sarcasm of that post, I'll make it elementary school simple for you:

"What does our current occupation of Iraq have to do with preventing al Qaeda from carrying out terrorist activities against the U.S. and western Europe?
Well, for one, we know that Zarqawi and his band of several thousand 72-virgin-laden al Qaedan followers aren't plotting a terrorist act in the U.S.

We also know that Saddam Hussein isn't still sending $25,000 dollar checks to terrorists and their families, or giving them Baghdad room and board, or giving them god knows what else he planned to give them.

PixelPusher

08-10-2006, 10:14 PM

Well, for one, we know that Zarqawi and his band of several thousand 72-virgin-laden al Qaedan followers aren't plotting a terrorist act in the U.S.

...or from Iraq. They're plotting from Afganistan and Pakistan, same place they've been in since September 11, 2001. Again, not Iraq. (consult a map). And now we have to deal with "non-regulars" who organize on their own from the UK and Canada and Chicago...which (consulting map) is in the U.S. I'd love to hear your suggestion for military deployment to stop these guys too.

We also know that Saddam Hussein isn't still sending $25,000 dollar checks to terrorists and their families, or giving them Baghdad room and board, or giving them god knows what else he planned to give them.

I see. We spend over $300 Billion, sacrifice the lives of 2591 soldiers and hamstring our military capability so Hussein will no longer have the ability to dole out 25k checks to Palestinian suicide bomber families. Bin Laden and al Qaeda were never "best buddies" with Saddam Hussein. They considered Hussein a secular apostate.

Yonivore

08-10-2006, 10:20 PM

...or from Iraq. They're plotting from Afganistan and Pakistan, same place they've been in since September 11, 2001...
And Malaysia and Indonesia and Northern Africa etc...all place we're battling them.

Again, not Iraq. (consult a map).
I see. Where was Abu Nidal in retirement? And Salmon Pak?

And now we have to deal with "non-regulars" who organize on their own from the UK and Canada and Chicago...which (consulting map) is in the U.S. I'd love to hear your suggestion for military deployment to stop these guys too.
There isn't a military solution to those within the United States except by attacking their sources of financial and ideologic support abroad. Which is what we're doing in approximately 2 dozen countries worldwide, including Iraq.

I see. We spend over $300 Billion, sacrifice the lives of 2591 soldiers and hamstring our military capability so Hussein will no longer have the ability to dole out 25k checks to Palestinian suicide bomber families. Bin Laden and al Qaeda were never "best buddies" with Saddam Hussein. They considered Hussein a secular apostate.
And al Qaeda would never team with Hizbollah...oops.

Al Qaeda was being trained at Salman Pak. Maybe it's good to have a couple hundred thousand troops next door to Syria, Iran, and Israel right now.

PixelPusher

08-10-2006, 11:04 PM

And Malaysia and Indonesia and Northern Africa etc...all place we're battling them.
Really? We have troops in Malaysia, Indonesia, Lybia, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Morocco hunting down terrorist? Oh, yeah...we DON'T.

Granted we do have a few troops in Afganistan (a known al Qaeda hangout, don't-cha-know!). We probably should have more, but...we're a little "tied up" in Iraq.

Hey! You know another well known al Qaeda hangout? Pakistan! But we don't have any troops over there. Hey, aren't they supposed to be our ally?

I see. Where was Abu Nidal in retirement? And Salmon Pak? Yay! We got their retirement home! Floridians everywhere thank their lucky stars they didn't choose Boca Raton.

There isn't a military solution to those within the United States except by attacking their sources of financial and ideologic support abroad. Which is what we're doing in approximately 2 dozen countries worldwide, including Iraq.
Remember that long list of Islamic countries we don't have troops in listed abo ve? Exactly how does our military force attack their finances from their ever more permanent bases in Iraq? For that matter, how is the military supposed to attack their ideological support? Blow up their mosques? Yeah! That'll learn 'im!

You should've stopped 5 words in..."There isn't a military solution"

And al Qaeda would never team with Hizbollah...oops.

Al Qaeda was being trained at Salman Pak. Maybe it's good to have a couple hundred thousand troops next door to Syria, Iran, and Israel right now.
Yeah, everyone at the Pentagon not named Donald Rumsfeld thinks it's just GREAT that the bulk of military is tied up in Iraq refereeing a civil war...oops! (I forgot, it's not a civil war unless blue and grey uni's, single shot rifles, and Ken Burns are involved) err...sectarian violence, insurgency and plain ol' crime, while surrounded by Iran and Syria.

All those lefty, cut-n-run General and military strategists at the Pentagon. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501298.html) Shame on them!

Not to worry though. If Iran or Syria try anything funny and the Middle East explodes into all-out-war, we can always just say "To hell with it!" and nuke the shit out Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afganistan...pretty much any and every country that had any ties to terrorism (Saudi Arabia, anyone?). And that will once and for all end the war on terror, because there's no chance the wholesale destruction of someone's homeland could inspire any further acts of terrorism, right?

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-10-2006, 11:19 PM

Really? We have troops in Malaysia, Indonesia, Lybia, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Morocco hunting down terrorist? Oh, yeah...we DON'T.

Actually, we've had some hunter-killer Special Forces units working in Africa since about November of '01.

PixelPusher

08-10-2006, 11:26 PM

Actually, we've had some hunter-killer Special Forces units working in Africa since about November of '01.

So a few special forces is sufficient for all of North Africa but Iraq requires hundreds of thousand of ground troops and permanent bases?

gtownspur

08-11-2006, 02:02 AM

So a few special forces is sufficient for all of North Africa but Iraq requires hundreds of thousand of ground troops and permanent bases?

if we're going by alqueda numebers, why not?

sabar

08-11-2006, 06:37 AM

All liquids temporarily bound on flights in the united states.

The chaos begins.

spurster

08-11-2006, 08:11 AM

If any one from my family ever dies from a terrorist attack, I will kill every fucking terrorist on the planet, even if it puts me in jail for life.
That how the many of the Palestinians think about the Israels. They will kill them even if kills themselves.

Extra Stout

08-11-2006, 08:56 AM

That how the many of the Palestinians think about the Israels. They will kill them even if kills themselves.

It's worse, even. Imagine if the U.N. decided that American Indians needed their own homeland separate from the U.S.A., and declared that a piece of South Texas would be partitioned out to make this new country, and that any non-native-tribe-Americans living in this section would be forced to move out, at gunpoint if necessary.

I have a hunch that Americans, and Texans in particular, would not take this lying down, would reject the legitimacy of the new country, and would pick up arms to destroy it.

Fast forward 60 years. Texans have been fighting continuously to destroy the new country, but all the other major powers in the world have given billions upon billions of dollars to help the Indian state to defend itself from attack. As a result, the American section of South Texas is devastated. In fact, the Indians through the fighting have expanded their territory to include half of San Antonio. For a time, they erected settlements in the Hill Country, as Indian religious extremists pushed an agenda to annex those lands to their territory, though that plan recently has fallen increasingly in disrepute.

How would you as a Texan feel about all this? Would you say:

A) The Indians have a birthright to the land, and we have 49 other states and the entire northern two-thirds of Texas to live in, so we should just lay down arms and accept it.

B) We should aspire to live in peace, so let's negotiate a settlement where the Indians keep the land they live in now, and San Antonio is made an "international city."

C) F*** the Indians, kill them all, and f*** these world powers that aid them, this is our land and we will never, ever give it up even if it means we have to die for it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Western powers, in our infinite wisdom, have created an impossible situation. 60 years in, you can't just say "Never mind, let's nullify the creation of Israel." It's done. There are 6 million people who live there, and who would be subject to slaughter and oppression were they to remain there under Arab rule. (Yes, they would. Even under the best circumstances, dhimmi Jews live like Jim Crow blacks. What was "tolerant" in 1400 is "apartheid" today.) They aren't going to leave voluntary, as they claim Israel as their ancient homeland and have lived there for three generations.

But neither are the Arabs, or other Muslims, going to accept its existence.

So... we get war until one side loses.

Phenomanul

08-11-2006, 09:11 AM

It's worse, even. Imagine if the U.N. decided that American Indians needed their own homeland separate from the U.S.A., and declared that a piece of South Texas would be partitioned out to make this new country, and that any non-native-tribe-Americans living in this section would be forced to move out, at gunpoint if necessary.

I have a hunch that Americans, and Texans in particular, would not take this lying down, would reject the legitimacy of the new country, and would pick up arms to destroy it.

Fast forward 60 years. Texans have been fighting continuously to destroy the new country, but all the other major powers in the world have given billions upon billions of dollars to help the Indian state to defend itself from attack. As a result, the American section of South Texas is devastated. In fact, the Indians through the fighting have expanded their territory to include half of San Antonio. For a time, they erected settlements in the Hill Country, as Indian religious extremists pushed an agenda to annex those lands to their territory, though that plan recently has fallen increasingly in disrepute.

How would you as a Texan feel about all this? Would you say:

A) The Indians have a birthright to the land, and we have 49 other states and the entire northern two-thirds of Texas to live in, so we should just lay down arms and accept it.

B) We should aspire to live in peace, so let's negotiate a settlement where the Indians keep the land they live in now, and San Antonio is made an "international city."

C) F*** the Indians, kill them all, and f*** these world powers that aid them, this is our land and we will never, ever give it up even if it means we have to die for it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Western powers, in our infinite wisdom, have created an impossible situation. 60 years in, you can't just say "Never mind, let's nullify the creation of Israel." It's done. There are 6 million people who live there, and who would be subject to slaughter and oppression were they to remain there under Arab rule. (Yes, they would. Even under the best circumstances, dhimmi Jews live like Jim Crow blacks. What was "tolerant" in 1400 is "apartheid" today.) They aren't going to leave voluntary, as they claim Israel as their ancient homeland and have lived there for three generations.

But neither are the Arabs, or other Muslims, going to accept its existence.

So... we get war until one side loses.

Good analogy.... seriously.

The only thing you left out, would be the little part where war was bound to happen anyways, because prophetically speaking, the return of Israel was foretold. Did we make it happen? or was the creation of Israel to occur despite our meddling?

Extra Stout

08-11-2006, 09:14 AM

Good analogy.... seriously.

The only thing you left out, would be the little part where war was bound to happen anyways, because prophetically speaking, the return of Israel was foretold. Did we make it happen? or was the creation of Israel to occur despite our meddling?
I'm amillenialist. :spin

gtownspur

08-11-2006, 10:09 AM

It's worse, even. Imagine if the U.N. decided that American Indians needed their own homeland separate from the U.S.A., and declared that a piece of South Texas would be partitioned out to make this new country, and that any non-native-tribe-Americans living in this section would be forced to move out, at gunpoint if necessary.

History tells a different story. No one was forced to move out at gunpoint, and there are still palestinians who live in Israel. Also, it was the massive migration of jews purchasing land from arabs who had didn't even control that territory as a national polity or body, or were a plurality of people in that area. Right after Israel was given rights to nationhood for the land that they purchased by their own money, the arabs conspired to overthrow Israel. Well they lost, and those palestinians who betrayed their Israeli neighbors forfeited that right, and Israel gained the gaza strip from egypt and the west bank from jordan. No palestinian state there.

But geez, this whole story of massive migration and overtaking of one's land by force sounds alot like the history of Texas!! Remember those white settlers who came into texas and didn't want to assimilate and fought for independence, and gained all land to the north of Colorado and down to the Rio Grande.

Where's all those beaners going to Steak houses and strapping bombs?

I have a hunch that Americans, and Texans in particular, would not take this lying down, would reject the legitimacy of the new country, and would pick up arms to destroy it.

Fast forward 60 years. Texans have been fighting continuously to destroy the new country, but all the other major powers in the world have given billions upon billions of dollars to help the Indian state to defend itself from attack. As a result, the American section of South Texas is devastated. In fact, the Indians through the fighting have expanded their territory to include half of San Antonio. For a time, they erected settlements in the Hill Country, as Indian religious extremists pushed an agenda to annex those lands to their territory, though that plan recently has fallen increasingly in disrepute.

How would you as a Texan feel about all this? Would you say:

A) The Indians have a birthright to the land, and we have 49 other states and the entire northern two-thirds of Texas to live in, so we should just lay down arms and accept it.

B) We should aspire to live in peace, so let's negotiate a settlement where the Indians keep the land they live in now, and San Antonio is made an "international city."

C) F*** the Indians, kill them all, and f*** these world powers that aid them, this is our land and we will never, ever give it up even if it means we have to die for it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Western powers, in our infinite wisdom, have created an impossible situation. 60 years in, you can't just say "Never mind, let's nullify the creation of Israel." It's done. There are 6 million people who live there, and who would be subject to slaughter and oppression were they to remain there under Arab rule. (Yes, they would. Even under the best circumstances, dhimmi Jews live like Jim Crow blacks. What was "tolerant" in 1400 is "apartheid" today.) They aren't going to leave voluntary, as they claim Israel as their ancient homeland and have lived there for three generations.

But neither are the Arabs, or other Muslims, going to accept its existence.

So... we get war until one side loses.

Analogy flawed.

gtownspur

08-11-2006, 10:11 AM

I'm amillenialist. :spin

Amillenial Preterist, present. :lol

Extra Stout

08-11-2006, 12:02 PM

History tells a different story. No one was forced to move out at gunpoint, and there are still palestinians who live in Israel. Also, it was the massive migration of jews purchasing land from arabs who had didn't even control that territory as a national polity or body, or were a plurality of people in that area. Right after Israel was given rights to nationhood for the land that they purchased by their own money, the arabs conspired to overthrow Israel. Well they lost, and those palestinians who betrayed their Israeli neighbors forfeited that right, and Israel gained the gaza strip from egypt and the west bank from jordan. No palestinian state there.

But geez, this whole story of massive migration and overtaking of one's land by force sounds alot like the history of Texas!! Remember those white settlers who came into texas and didn't want to assimilate and fought for independence, and gained all land to the north of Colorado and down to the Rio Grande.

Where's all those beaners going to Steak houses and strapping bombs?
OK, I'll modify the analogy. This time, we'll have the U.N. declare the Navajo reservation an independent country.

The Navajos already own it. They already live on it. It is their ancestral land (or part of it). We've controlled the area for 158 years. They have been there for at least a couple thousand years. Would we accept that?

Or would we see it as an attack upon the territorial integrity of our nation?

I don't think the fact that the Arabs were not self-governing during the period of the Partition (or at any time since the rise of the Ottomans) abrogates their nationalist sentiments. Before we were much involved in the region, they loathed the British.

And you are not correct in the assertion that the Jews were given only lands they already had purchased. They had scattered settlements in the Galilee, between Haifa and Beersheba, and a few around Jerusalem. They owned, at most, 20% of the land that made up the Jewish partition in the 1947 plan.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did some more interesting reading about the creation of Israel which would supercede my assertion that "we" the Western powers screwed up, and which gives some insight into the attitudes of the non-Arab Muslim world concerning the Jews. Following WWII, as the "Jewish question" came to the forefront, there was more than one solution proposed.

The U.N. commissioned a team of nations to study the various options regarding whether to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, or an autonomous region, or to put them somewhere else, or to do nothing. To lessen the amount of strongarming, all major powers were left off the team.

When the report came back, seven nations recommended creating a partition of two states west of the Jordan River, one Muslim, one Jewish. Three nations, one of which was Iran, recommended two autonomous regions, one Muslim, one Jewish, within a single central government located in an internationally-administrated Jerusalem, and one nation (Australia) abstained from making a recommendation.

Churchill actually was trying to scuttle any attempt to create a Jewish state during this time, since he was afraid an Arab backlash would endanger British oil interests. The UK actually abstained from voting on the partition plan.

So, at the time, one could argue that the government in Iran was more sympathetic to the Jewish issue than the British government was. Of course, in 1953, that government was overthrown in favor of the Shah, again, to protect British oil interests.

Aside -- Churchill was a heck of a leader during wartime, but in peace, he was a disastrous bloody little bastard.

Nbadan

08-28-2006, 07:09 PM

(snip)
“In retrospect,’’ said Michael A. Sheehan, the former deputy commissioner of counterterrorism in the New York Police Department, “there may have been too much hyperventilating going on.”
(snip)

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/world/europe/28plot.html?ex=1314417600&en=3bd0e2112e48e451&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss)

Duh!

:hat

Some more excerpts from the article...

...But at the same time, five senior British officials said, the suspects were not prepared to strike immediately. Instead, the reactions of Britain and the United States in the wake of the arrests of 21 people on Aug. 10 were driven less by information about a specific, imminent attack than fear that other, unknown terrorists might strike.

...

Despite the charges, officials said they were still unsure of one critical question: whether any of the suspects was technically capable of assembling and detonating liquid explosives while airborne.

A chemist involved in that part of the inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was sworn to confidentiality, said HMTD, which can be prepared by combining hydrogen peroxide with other chemicals, “in theory is dangerous,” but whether the suspects “had the brights to pull it off remains to be seen.”

...

Two of the men, who were likely the bomb-makers, were conducting a series of experiments with chemicals, said the person briefed on the case.

MI5 agents secretly installed video and audio recording equipment inside the apartment, two senior British officials said. In a secret search conducted before the Aug. 10 raids, agents had discovered that the inside of batteries had been scooped out, and that it appeared several suspects were doing chemical experiments with a sports drink named Lucozade and syringes, the person with knowledge of the case said. Investigators have said they believe that the suspects intended to bring explosive chemicals aboard planes inside sports drink bottles.

...

“The plotters received a very short message to ‘Go now,’ ” said Franco Frattini, the European Union’s security commissioner, who was briefed by the British home secretary, John Reid, in London. “I was convinced by British authorities that this message exists.”

A senior British official said the message from Pakistan was not that explicit. But, nonetheless, investigators here had to change their strategy quickly.

“The aim was to keep this operation going for much longer,” said a senior British security official who requested anonymity because of confidentiality rules. “It ended much sooner than we had hoped.”

From then on, the British government was driven by worst-case scenarios based on a minimum-risk strategy. ...