Terror Plot Foiled

@if ®afiq · 17 Aug 2006 at 12:53

Borris said:
It makes sense though.

1) Imply liquid bomb plot
2) Obtain EU finding
.)
.)
5) Profit

(3 and 4 are classified, as they involve accidental leaking (no pun) of newly researched techniques for liquid explosives to potential terrorists. Or to government agencies, who are far more likely to use them, after all.)

My thoughts exactly.

@if ®afiq · 17 Aug 2006 at 12:54

cleanbluesky said:
I am not sure all are guilty, but I do trust the security services to conduct the investigation thoroughly and do everyone proud...

I don't trust them one bit - but I hope you're right!

Von Smallhausen · 17 Aug 2006 at 13:13

@if ®afiq said:
I don't trust them one bit

Why ?

Do you mean the Security Service / MI5, the police or both ?

cleanbluesky · 17 Aug 2006 at 13:16

@if ®afiq said:
I don't trust them one bit

So you are lucky enough that they have never have never saved your from anything?

Sleepy · 17 Aug 2006 at 13:30

@if ®afiq said:
I don't trust them one bit - but I hope you're right!

Who'd you call if there was an angry mob outside your door baying for your blood?

Sleepy · 17 Aug 2006 at 16:56

Al-Qaeda Sanctioned Plot

Sky News

Al-Qaeda Sanctioned Plot

The alleged UK airport terror plot was sanctioned by al Qaeda's No2, Ayman al Zawahri, according to Pakistani intelligence.

The latest investigations by Pakistan also indicate that a British national arrested in Pakistan, Rashid Rauf, was the planner of the alleged attacks, according to an official.

"We have reason to believe that it was al Qaeda sanctioned and was probably cleared by al Zawahri", said the Pakistani official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

@if ®afiq · 17 Aug 2006 at 16:59

Von Smallhausen said:
Why ?

Do you mean the Security Service / MI5, the police or both ?

Forest gate, ricin plot, Man Utd plot, tanks around heathrow etc...

@if ®afiq · 17 Aug 2006 at 17:06

cleanbluesky said:
So you are lucky enough that they have never have never saved your from anything?

That I don't know. They may have or they may not have.

@if ®afiq · 17 Aug 2006 at 17:14

Sleepy said:
Who'd you call if there was an angry mob outside your door baying for your blood?

My mum

Joking aside - I would obviously call the police....

When I say I don't trust them it's becuase of their previous track record on imminent threats to us.

@if ®afiq · 17 Aug 2006 at 17:15

Obviously no torture was involved by the ISI in getting this information....

Sleepy · 17 Aug 2006 at 17:25

@if ®afiq said:
Obviously no torture was involved by the ISI in getting this information....

You're assuming its not a fabrication of some one in Pakistan to show that they are doing their part in the Long War.

Von Smallhausen · 17 Aug 2006 at 17:29

@if ®afiq said:
Forest gate, ricin plot, Man Utd plot, tanks around heathrow etc...

And that generates distrust how ?

I am not sure what your point is. Could you clarify ?

@if ®afiq · 17 Aug 2006 at 17:40

Sleepy said:
You're assuming its not a fabrication of some one in Pakistan to show that they are doing their part in the Long War.

That is also true

@if ®afiq · 17 Aug 2006 at 17:45

Von Smallhausen said:
And that generates distrust how ?

I am not sure what your point is. Could you clarify ?

Take Forest Gate as a good recent example. I don't know the in's or outs of it but from what I gather there was an imminent threat from a chemical attack - so imminent that there was a no-fly zone imposed (although curiously, the neighbours were not evacuated) over the house.....and it transpired that not only was there no such thing in the house but the two suspects were 100% innocent of any terrorst related activites.

Now even though this was a big blunder, the event still exists in people mind and the idea that all Muslim's are terrorists are re-enforced in peoples minds.

They may well have apologised, but the damage has been done. It's pretty much like these pathetic Daily Mail non-events which, even though have no involvement from Muslims, is still thought to do so and is still blamed on Muslims. It really does make me sad.

You may not notice what effect this is having, but I certainly do.

Von Smallhausen · 17 Aug 2006 at 18:02

@if ®afiq said:
Take Forest Gate as a good recent example. I don't know the in's or outs of it but from what I gather there was an imminent threat from a chemical attack - so imminent that there was a no-fly zone imposed (although curiously, the neighbours were not evacuated) over the house.....and it transpired that not only was there no such thing in the house but the two suspects were 100% innocent of any terrorst related activites.

A very good comment and example, but consider this. Is it possible that someone was believed to have excellent intelligence that needed acting upon but played the police and Security Service as fools with a real agenda of causing more distrust amongst the Muslim community ? Forest Gate was not good at all in terms of the reputation of the police, already in question with events such as Stockwell, and I agree it was an embarrasment. I suspect the real truth is that they ( the police and security services ) were played for fools. That is only my own opinion though.

Now even though this was a big blunder, the event still exists in people mind and the idea that all Muslim's are terrorists are re-enforced in peoples minds.

Which would link in with what I said above ? I, however, do not think like that and I never will.

They may well have apologised, but the damage has been done. It's pretty much like these pathetic Daily Mail non-events which, even though have no involvement from Muslims, is still thought to do so and is still blamed on Muslims.

That, I can't argue with.

It really does make me sad.

As it does me.

You may not notice what effect this is having, but I certainly do.

I do @if, more than you might think my friend.

VIRII · 17 Aug 2006 at 18:18

@if ®afiq said:
Forest gate, ricin plot, Man Utd plot, tanks around heathrow etc...

So people who have heard of 9/11, 7/7 the Taliban, Al-Quaeda, Abu Hamza and various other incidents like that have every reason not to trust muslims then?

Sleepy · 17 Aug 2006 at 18:25

VIRII said:
So people who have heard of 9/11, 7/7 the Taliban, Al-Quaeda, Abu Hamza and various other incidents like that have every reason not to trust muslims then?

I wasn't aware that 'muslims' were an organised hierarchical group whose role and authority derive from the state.

cleanbluesky · 17 Aug 2006 at 18:28

Sleepy said:
I wasn't aware that 'muslims' were an organised hierarchical group whose role and authority derive from the state.

They are organised around an inflexible ideology without hierarchy, although one which lends itself very well to rulership by militia...

cleanbluesky · 17 Aug 2006 at 18:32

@if ®afiq said:
Take Forest Gate as a good recent example. I don't know the in's or outs of it but from what I gather there was an imminent threat from a chemical attack - so imminent that there was a no-fly zone imposed (although curiously, the neighbours were not evacuated) over the house.....and it transpired that not only was there no such thing in the house but the two suspects were 100% innocent of any terrorst related activites.

They were tipped off by a known terrorist, one of their brothers is a drug dealer who has paraded as a terrorist, one of whom is on charges for paedophilia-style crimes, both of whom have committed anti-social behaviour and both of whom are still to account for £30k found in their posession...

Now even though this was a big blunder, the event still exists in people mind and the idea that all Muslim's are terrorists are re-enforced in peoples minds.

No @if, I think the idea is not that ALL Muslims are terrorists, but ANY Muslim can be a terrorist.

You may not notice what effect this is having, but I certainly do.

And what effect did 9/11 have? 7/7? Abu Hamza? etc. etc. etc.

VIRII · 17 Aug 2006 at 18:34

Sleepy said:
I wasn't aware that 'muslims' were an organised hierarchical group whose role and authority derive from the state.

And what difference would that make? If a few bungled raids is enough to have zero trust in the police force or MI5 then surely acts of violence by muslims and preaching of hatred by muslims is enough to assume that all muslims are untrustworthy.
After all if it only requires a few mistakes to label the entire police force and intelligence service as utterly untrustworthy then by the same "logic" it must only require a few hook handed hate preachers and a few suicide bombers to label the entire muslim population as untrustworthy.
It is the actions that are being judged here not the make up of the organisation.