NationStates Jolt Archive

Congratulations on a job well done, and I hope you run down the rest of the conspirators and traitors.

That said, I am wondering if the UK terror laws played any part in the UK's ability to conduct this operation, whether it helped in the overseas operation, or if it helped in the wiretapping of the conspirators, or in the searches used by the UK against the conspirators.

Radio reports here in the US indicate that the UK searched the apartments of all of the conspirators with secret warrants, so that the occupant was never notified, and the apartments were entered surreptitiously.

Also, what part did the news organizations play in this? Did the BBC or any other UK news organization get wind of this in advance? And if so, why didn't they publish the details (as many details as possible) well in advance?

And why did Blair go on vacation just beforehand? Did he know something else that hasn't been said?

I have the feeling that if the US had been investigating this, the New York Times would have busted the government for illegal wiretapping, illegal searches, and the terrorists in question would have read the papers and gone into hiding.

So, once again, thank you UK.

I wouldn't have too much faith in Britain. They'll only be kept in cushy conditions in prison they'll be walking the streets again in a few years. The human rights brigade will see to that.

I wouldn't have too much faith in Britain. They'll only be kept in cushy conditions in prison they'll be walking the streets again in a few years. The human rights brigade will see to that.
At least you get to catch them for a bit. Here in the US, the New York Times sees to it that the terrorists get plenty of warning.

At least you get to catch them for a bit. Here in the US, the New York Times sees to it that the terrorists get plenty of warning.
Boy, you're in a slanderous mood this morning. What happened? Who shit in your cereal?

Boy, you're in a slanderous mood this morning. What happened? Who shit in your cereal?
I heard from an old friend yesterday whose sole means of arguing with me is identifying anything he doesn't agree with as "talking points".

Boy, you're in a slanderous mood this morning. What happened? Who shit in your cereal?
He isn't exactly wrong, now is he?

I wouldn't have too much faith in Britain. They'll only be kept in cushy conditions in prison they'll be walking the streets again in a few years. The human rights brigade will see to that.
Haha yeah...maybe they'll book them rooms in the Hilton.

I think the main problem is that the US media is too interested in "selling" their news to turn out a better profit. Slandering the goverment and uncovering secret plans is a nice way to achieve the purpose of "Bang! news". Blame that on the free enterprise and the liberalist, competition attitude of most of your country's corporations, it usually fades away all sense of ethics.

Money, dirty, dirty money.

I think the main problem is that the US media is too interested in "selling" their news to turn out a better profit. Slandering the goverment and uncovering secret plans is a nice way to achieve the purpose of "Bang! news". Blame that on the free enterprise and the liberalist, competition attitude of most of your country's corporations, it usually fades away all sense of ethics.

Money, dirty, dirty money.

Now that is true insight. Why blame it on politics, when it's just money talking...

I think the main problem is that the US media is too interested in "selling" their news to turn out a better profit. Slandering the goverment and uncovering secret plans is a nice way to achieve the purpose of "Bang! news". Blame that on the free enterprise and the liberalist, competition attitude of most of your country's corporations, it usually fades away all sense of ethics.

Money, dirty, dirty money.
Yes, what we need is an even more secretive government. And should it decide one day to put us all in cages, yes, then all the more praise should go to it!

Fool. Do you not realise that a free press is necessary for any form of democracy? Whether the government or corporations control the media, there is little difference. Except that in the latter's case, one may see a little more information than what the former would be willing to divulge. It would be great to see small enterprises once more arising and the death of the larger corporations. I'd like to see both big government and big business choke on their fat.

I think the main problem is that the US media is too interested in "selling" their news to turn out a better profit. Slandering the goverment and uncovering secret plans is a nice way to achieve the purpose of "Bang! news". Blame that on the free enterprise and the liberalist, competition attitude of most of your country's corporations, it usually fades away all sense of ethics.

Money, dirty, dirty money.
I think it's deeper than that. Every beat reporter wants to be a Bernstein or Woodward and uncover some great scandal. Most aren't and none of them go through the process that the Post did before printing any of those stories.

I think it's deeper than that. Every beat reporter wants to be a Bernstein or Woodward and uncover some great scandal. Most aren't and none of them go through the process that the Post did before printing any of those stories.
Heh, they shouldn't be touching upon matters of government security. But to me, that is hardly enough to form an indictment of the free press as it is.

Heh, they shouldn't be touching upon matters of government security. But to me, that is hardly enough to form an indictment of the free press as it is.
The question before a reporter in that situation.

Do I think it's more important to bust the government's chops for secret searches and secret wiretaps of terrorists, or is it more important to be quiet until after the terrorists are arrested?

I have the feeling that if the US had been investigating this, the New York Times would have busted the government for illegal wiretapping, illegal searches, and the terrorists in question would have read the papers and gone into hiding.

So, once again, thank you UK.
The UK did great -- No question. One wonders whether or not our FBI has foiled similar plots without the fanfare, simply because they were able to keep it secret.

I travel out of the Atlanta airport almost weekly. There's always a new item on the search list, it seems. And sometimes it's shoes on are okay, sometimes all shoes have to come off. It just depends on the briefings that the TSA personnel get before their shifts.

Anyhow, I think there is more counter-terrorism going on in the U.S. than we may suspect.

The question before a reporter in that situation.

Do I think it's more important to bust the government's chops for secret searches and secret wiretaps of terrorists, or is it more important to be quiet until after the terrorists are arrested?
Well, one of the government's few actual raisons d'etre are for it to provide security and law and order to its governed. Therefore, in matters of national security, the reported should learn to shut his trap or face the consequences.

The UK did great -- No question. One wonders whether or not our FBI has foiled similar plots without the fanfare, simply because they were able to keep it secret.

I travel out of the Atlanta airport almost weekly. There's always a new item on the search list, it seems. And sometimes it's shoes on are okay, sometimes all shoes have to come off. It just depends on the briefings that the TSA personnel get before their shifts.

Anyhow, I think there is more counter-terrorism going on in the U.S. than we may suspect.


Well, my only experience with journalists and such was in the military. Where 99 percent of them seemed to be completely ignorant of military strategy, tactics, or technology. And even more ignorant of the social aspects within the military.

If they are just as ignorant of how secret investigations are actually conducted, they may be missing 99 percent of the story, without even knowing it.

He isn't exactly wrong, now is he?
Sure he is. I guarantee you he can't come up with a single instance where the NY Times foiled the US's ability to roll up a terrorist plot.

And just so it's clear--the US, in the intel that the NSA gave to the UK in this case, was gotten with warrants from the FISA courts. Legal wiretapping got the job done.

DK is just pissy because a free press--and while the one we have is shitty, it's still relatively free--is anathema to his dreams of a police state.

DK is just pissy because a free press--and while the one we have is shitty, it's still relatively free--is anathema to his dreams of a police state.
I am just skeptical of your press' ability to actually report the news. It is of course preferable to a government monopoly of information, but then again having big corporations assume that role is only marginally the more desirable a situation. Would be cool if we could go back to the days when small/middle sized businesses and non-profit and local newspapers still thrived. Still, even what you have now is better than no freedom.

Sure he is. I guarantee you he can't come up with a single instance where the NY Times foiled the US's ability to roll up a terrorist plot.

You can't prove that it didn't for the same reasons.

Any of that information would either be classified, or beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen.

Fallacious, to say the least.

I am just skeptical of your press' ability to actually report the news. It is of course preferable to a government monopoly of information, but then again having big corporations assume that role is only marginally the more desirable a situation. Would be cool if we could go back to the days when small/middle sized businesses and local newspapers still thrived. Still, even what you have now is better than no freedom.I couldn't agree more--corporate domination of media is a major problem. But what DK is suggesting is that the NY Times in particular is in essence a traitorous organization that aids and abets terrorists who want to attack the US, simply so it can sell more papers.

You can't prove that it didn't for the same reasons.

Any of that information would either be classified, or beyond the reach of the ordinary citizen.

Fallacious, to say the least.I don't have to--I'm not the one making the slanderous suggestion. You're the one doing that.

I don't have to--I'm not the one making the slanderous suggestion. You're the one doing that.
You presume too much. It's not slander.

I can easily prove that terrorists (any ones that have an average IQ and read the New York Times) can change their tactics based on information.

We know that they are intelligent enough to change from solid to liquid explosives in response to knowing (from seeing the machine) that explosive detectors don't pick up liquids. Just solids.

So, now that we know they changed in response to information, we know for a fact that the New York Times revealed top secret information concerning US surveillance methods (that proved extremely useful in the Bali bombings when used without FISA approval).

That's new information they didn't have.

They change their tactics in response to new information.

Still think they won't change their tactics? Eh?

You would have to be stupid not to believe they would change.

Yes, what we need is an even more secretive government. And should it decide one day to put us all in cages, yes, then all the more praise should go to it!

Fool. Do you not realise that a free press is necessary for any form of democracy? Whether the government or corporations control the media, there is little difference. Except that in the latter's case, one may see a little more information than what the former would be willing to divulge. It would be great to see small enterprises once more arising and the death of the larger corporations. I'd like to see both big government and big business choke on their fat.

I am a journalist, surprise, surprise. I am a stalwart defender of the right to free press and free speech, as you may guess, fress press is something we all journalists want because it is our only professional right usually in jeopardy.

Even then, we have something called a code of ethics, that although it is not a cage, and usually violations of it are not punished by the law, it is followed to make a professional image of yourself. It states that if the information you are going to divulge is harmful to the society as a whole, or otherwise dangerous, you should not "keep it secret", but instead wait until the situation resolves to publish it.

I'll give you an example. Several years ago, we suffered heavy social disorders and riots. The media started to show the images of the people sacking commerce districts and stealing shops. The "information" they provided to the populace actually only helped to inform the people that they were almost free to go out and sack some shop nearby. Chaos ensued, and although the media were not the direct cause of the riots, they had responsability for broadcasting images that, in the tense and delicate situation, were almost a provocation for crime.

My postgrade studies of comunicology indicates that something along the same lines happened in the Paris riots lately, with the TV stations providing information about the whereabouts of the police strike forces and so forth.

But they were competing, for money or for fame, to get the latest news without regard of the sociological impact of the information they were transmitting. That is against the journalism's code of ethics, in both cases.

Kimchi, for me politics and money talking are usually close related. Although not the same thing, they usually work together. Some journalists want their 15 minutes of fame, other just want to get rich, or receive pressure from their editors and directors to get the latest news no matter what, especially before the other channels/papers get them. And then they work without any further concern for society or the effect of the information, just driven by their selfish goals.

It is not about free press, you can be free and publish what you got later. It is about social responsability, and sadly that is a virtue not easily found in the journalism guild lately.

It is about social responsability, and sadly that is a virtue not easily found in the journalism guild lately.
A problem faced by non-journalists as well.

I couldn't agree more--corporate domination of media is a major problem. But what DK is suggesting is that the NY Times in particular is in essence a traitorous organization that aids and abets terrorists who want to attack the US, simply so it can sell more papers.

Well, I have met several New York Times guys...They are just looking for the latest news, usually without being informed on the background of them. For me, they are unethic and ambitious, only searching the breakthrough. Most of the time you cannot blame them, as they are following orders from superior instances, but yet...

It is not about free press, you can be free and publish what you got later. It is about social responsability, and sadly that is a virtue not easily found in the journalism guild lately.
Look, I do not disagree here. In fact, I consider it a shame that such ethics are no longer maintained. This is materialism pure and simple, whatever system it may manifest in. My point is that even if your press is not what it should be, I would much prefer it to a government monopoly of information. I pretty much stated to Nazz what I (and most libertarians) would envisage as an ideal situation. Until then, we'll just have to contend with the imperfect press as it is. As for social responsibility, the only way for this to thrive is if individuals have this ingrained into their minds from a young age, something parents nowadays are falling back on, and educational systems fail to provide. So no wonder that journalists and the media are the way they are.

What annoyed me was your attack on free enterprise, when everyone knows that the US is more or less corporate-dominated. In a society of free enterprise, monopolies are an anomaly, not the norm, and usually one for governments to break down.

Oh well, and with the exception of Harris Whitbeck, who is an awesome reporter, the CNN guys are even worst, they usually send news without confirmation, broadcast gossips and rumors, and barely confirm the sources.

Oh well, and with the exception of Harris Whitbeck, who is an awesome reporter, the CNN guys are even worst, they usually send news without confirmation, broadcast gossips and rumors, and barely confirm the sources.
Meh, I simply stick to Euronews nowadays. It's ultra-minimal, but at least it is objective and courteous enough to substantiate what it says.

Oh well, and with the exception of Harris Whitbeck, who is an awesome reporter, the CNN guys are even worst, they usually send news without confirmation, broadcast gossips and rumors, and barely confirm the sources.
Kinda like Nic Robertson, who let himself be manipulated by Hezbollah just so he could "get the story".

Well, a false story, but he never, ever told the viewers that he was being manipulated, or couldn't say what really was going on because the Hez were standing there with their guns.

You know - the Eason Jordan school of journalism, where you print the false story so that your "sources" don't suffer.

Look, I do not disagree here. In fact, I consider it a shame that such ethics are no longer maintained. This is materialism pure and simple, whatever system it may manifest in. My point is that even if your press is not what it should be, I would much prefer it to a government monopoly of information. I pretty much stated to Nazz what I (and most libertarians) would envisage as an ideal situation. Until then, we'll just have to contend with the imperfect press as it is. As for social responsibility, the only way for this to thrive is if individuals have this ingrained into their minds from a young age, something parents nowadays are falling back on, and educational systems fail to provide. So no wonder that journalists and the media are the way they are.

Well, I am heavily against a goverment monopoly of information, for obvious reasons. But yes, we have to deal with the imperfect, flawed press, although sometimes people actually manage to behave properly. I have evidence of cases where the different media agreed to keep certain information quiet until the situation solves, cooperating and forgetting the competition that usually drives them to do stupid things.

It is a rare phenomenon, although.

Here's a bit different out look on it...

Some of Britain's 1.7 million Muslims said they felt under siege and doubted whether there was a plot, given past blunders by British anti-terrorism police due to faulty intelligence.

"I wouldn't be surprised if it was another case of a high-profile operation whipping the general public into this frenzy with very scant evidence," said Anjem Choudary, a former leader of the radical Al Muhajiroun group which praised the September 11 attacks.:rolleyes:

source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060811/ts_nm/security_britain_dc_26)

Anyway, when I first read that this morning I thought what utter nonsense, someone get this man a tinfoil hat... and then I thought again? I wonder if this guy posts in NSG? Hmmmm, could be, could be, I wonder what his screen name is? ;)

Anyway, when I first read that this morning I thought what utter nonsense, someone get this man a tinfoil hat... and then I thought again? I wonder if this guy posts in NSG? Hmmmm, could be, could be, I wonder what his screen name is? ;)
OceanDrive is American, I think.

Here's a bit different out look on it...

Some of Britain's 1.7 million Muslims said they felt under siege and doubted whether there was a plot, given past blunders by British anti-terrorism police due to faulty intelligence.

"I wouldn't be surprised if it was another case of a high-profile operation whipping the general public into this frenzy with very scant evidence," said Anjem Choudary, a former leader of the radical Al Muhajiroun group which praised the September 11 attacks.:rolleyes:

source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060811/ts_nm/security_britain_dc_26)

Anyway, when I first read that this morning I thought what utter nonsense, someone get this man a tinfoil hat... and then I thought again? I wonder if this guy posts in NSG? Hmmmm, could be, could be, I wonder what his screen name is? ;)
Now, I am not one to suggest conspiratorial theories. However, would you really put this past the Labour government? I mean their anti-terrorism acts recently just failed in Parliament. It's an unlikely scenario, but implausible? No.

Well, I have met several New York Times guys...They are just looking for the latest news, usually without being informed on the background of them. For me, they are unethic and ambitious, only searching the breakthrough. Most of the time you cannot blame them, as they are following orders from superior instances, but yet...

"I was only following orders". An excuse that still holds no water.

Deep Kimchi asked if the UK papers knew and why they did not publish -

There is this thing called a D-Notice. Basically any story deemed to be not in the public interest can be stopped.

http://www.dnotice.org.uk/

Deep Kimchi also congratulated the UK for a job well done...

Well out of the hundreds arrested very few have been convicted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3290383.stm

Of course then we have the Forest Gate raid...where the police decided that instead of a terror charge they decided that in fact it was a kiddie pr0n offence that was commited.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/03/uforest.xml

Then there was the Ricin plot...remember that? No one was charged.

What about Jean Charles de Menezes? Everything in that situation stank.

Yeah...our security services are doing a fine fine job.

:rolleyes:

Yeah...our security services are doing a fine fine job.
Better than we're doing over here.

Boy, you're in a slanderous mood this morning. What happened? Who shit in your cereal?

*raises hand* I couldn't help it; They were Grape Nuts. *bleah*

Better than we're doing over here.

really? I'd have thought you'd consider the Jose Padilla saga to trump anything that the UK has done...

really? I'd have thought you'd consider the Jose Padilla saga to trump anything that the UK has done...
We didn't shoot him in the head in public without a trial, eh?

Now, I am not one to suggest conspiratorial theories. However, would you really put this past the Labour government? I mean their anti-terrorism acts recently just failed in Parliament. It's an unlikely scenario, but implausible? No.

These were exactly my thoughts when I first heard about this alleged terror plot.

Step 1:

Fake the "biggest terrorist mass murder plot ever heard of". Arrest some bearded men. Makes you look competent, efficient, and tough. Respect of the public re-established. About time, too.

Step 2:

Cut down civil rights and invade Iran.

I do hope that some HARD proof for a terrorist plot is coming up VERY soon.

Couldn't say what's worse: a real plot to bring down ten planes or the conspirationalist view.

We didn't shoot him in the head in public without a trial, eh?

So Padilla is innocent?

So Padilla is innocent?
Until proven guilty.

There's plenty of probable cause to permit his arrest and detention.

But we have to wait for a fair trial, before we can execute anyone.

Until proven guilty.

There's plenty of probable cause to permit his arrest and detention.

But we have to wait for a fair trial, before we can execute anyone.

So you think that extra judicial killings of innocent persons is ok then.

Interesting.

I trust you found the D-Notice information of use btw

These were exactly my thoughts when I first heard about this alleged terror plot.

Step 1:

Fake the "biggest terrorist mass murder plot ever heard of". Arrest some bearded men. Makes you look competent, efficient, and tough. Respect of the public re-established. About time, too.

I think that the UK, fortunately, is too small and compact for the Government to successfully use divide-and-conquer methods like that. There are very few places you can stand in Britain where you would not be within a mile of a Muslim. If the Government started to act oppressively against Muslims there would be nowhere where they could do it out of the way and the reciprocal violence would spiral from there - and the Government knows this. This is not to say that I believe that the Police are anti-Muslim, but they do need to watch their step.

So you think that extra judicial killings of innocent persons is ok then.

Interesting.

I trust you found the D-Notice information of use btw
How did you arrive at that?
I'm saying it's ok to kill them if they are a) in actual combat with you, or b) tried and convicted.

Then an execution is perfectly fine with me.

Shooting a Brazilian man without a trial is worse than what we've done to Padilla.

How did you arrive at that?
I'm saying it's ok to kill them if they are a) in actual combat with you, or b) tried and convicted.

Then an execution is perfectly fine with me.

Shooting a Brazilian man without a trial is worse than what we've done to Padilla.

Seems to me you have forgotten what you have already posted...

DK - Better than we're doing over here.

I think that the UK, fortunately, is too small and compact for the Government to successfully use divide-and-conquer methods like that. There are very few places you can stand in Britain where you would not be within a mile of a Muslim. If the Government started to act oppressively against Muslims there would be nowhere where they could do it out of the way and the reciprocal violence would spiral from there - and the Government knows this. This is not to say that I believe that the Police are anti-Muslim, but they do need to watch their step.

I'm not saying it's all a conspiracy. It's just like - err - these days, you can't believe nothing from nobody no more. (ain't nuthin nowhere no more fun than multiple negatives).

Sit and wait. That's all so far. Too early for back-padding and public fireworks, too early for conspiracy theories, too early for comments altogether.

I don't know. I construe the very public nature of the operation as evidence that the entire affair was conducted at the last minute, and with no small amount of anxiety. The threat must have been immediate for the London airports to have been closed at the height of holiday season.

From what I infer from the news, it would appear that the intelligence services either only became aware of the plot in the previous weeks, or intended to wait to ensure the capture of the entire cell.

Therefore, we can either surmise that the operation was bloody well planned, or conducted at the last hour.

How did you arrive at that?
I'm saying it's ok to kill them if they are a) in actual combat with you, or b) tried and convicted.

Then an execution is perfectly fine with me.

Shooting a Brazilian man without a trial is worse than what we've done to Padilla.


Seems to me you have forgotten what you have already posted...

DK - Better than we're doing over here.

Nothing to say Deep Kimchi? Seems to me that you are not being exactly 'honest' here....still not surprising for a gimme gimme gimme neo-con huh?

It would be a funny as hell if it wasn't for the fact you like to project this veil of intellectualism. I've gotten stoned with an eyeless rat called Whitey that was more intellectual than you.

That is a true story...if you are lucky I might relate it to you. Not that I expect you to understand...but then you might surprise me.

Boy, you're in a slanderous mood this morning. What happened? Who shit in your cereal?


LMFAO! That was a great line Nazz.http://forums.site5.com/images/smilies/roflmao.gif

LMFAO! That was a great line Nazz.http://forums.site5.com/images/smilies/roflmao.gif
Thank Kevin Smith--I stole it from him. :D
The "shit in your cereal" part, that is.

great job indeed.
don't forget those one,either in afganistan or irak.
great job.
you make this world a free one.;)

So, once again, thank you UK.
You'll find that the UK is not a single entity of one mind. You're as bad as Alanis Morissette with her 'thank you India'. *sigh*

I don't know. I construe the very public nature of the operation as evidence that the entire affair was conducted at the last minute, and with no small amount of anxiety. The threat must have been immediate for the London airports to have been closed at the height of holiday season.

From what I infer from the news, it would appear that the intelligence services either only became aware of the plot in the previous weeks, or intended to wait to ensure the capture of the entire cell.

Therefore, we can either surmise that the operation was bloody well planned, or conducted at the last hour.

Given the measures taken and al-Qaeda's tendency to attack near the 11th of a month, I suspect that if we hadn't seen airport closings and arrests yesterday, then we would be seeing mass casualties from terrorism today, or tomorrow at the latest.