"MASS MURDER ON AN UNIMAGINEABLE SCALE" (1 Viewer)

[Corey]

So says scotland yard about this mornings failed terrorist attempt.

Everybody calm down. Sky news are quoting this approximatley 3 times per minute. Along with other words like "spectacular" and "Apocalyptic"

I'm not for death, but lets call a spade a spade. My feet smell, but they would'nt "Glaze the Eyes of a million innocent Children".

 

[La La]

but it's sky news?

they'd all self destruct on that channel if they weren't allowed to employ the use of outrageous words to convey a situation to the unsuspecting public.

 

[aoboa]

Posted this in the general section already:

Call me paranoid but:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1841140,00.html
"There was no indication that security services expected an attack today, but it had been decided to move against the terror suspects overnight."

and this:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1841019,00.html
"John Reid yesterday accused the government's anti-terror critics of putting national security at risk by their failure to recognise the serious nature of the threat facing Britain. "They just don't get it," he said.The home secretary yesterday gave the thinktank Demos his strongest hint yet that a new round of anti-terror legislation is on the way this autumn by warning that traditional civil liberty arguments were not so much wrong as just made for another age."

Makes you wonder...

 

[Corey]

Engaging the public's concscience through fear and sensationalism is no way of ending war.

So say i.


I'd pay for an expose on Sky news. Or an inquiry. or some such

 

[La La]

Engaging the public's concscience through fear and sensationalism is no way of ending war.

So say i.


I'd pay for an expose on Sky news. Or an inquiry. or some such

i, and most people - would agree with you. but it's no secret that that's 'the sky news way.'

anyway isnt engaging the public through fearmongering what the media's for?

 

[avernus]

fuckin hell. exploding 10 planes mid flight to the US. it's my fuckin worst nightmare!! I always expect my plane to explode - terrorism or otherwise.

 

[Lord Damian]

"Reports suggested the plot revolved around liquid-based explosives, and all passengers from the UK and the US were being told they could not carry liquid or lotions onto flights. Heathrow officials said all milk for babies would have to be tasted by an "accompanying passenger"."

wow. i'd be there in a heartbeat, looking for the ones who were still on the tit.

 

[pete]

Yanks not impressed with UK terror emergency

By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Published Thursday 10th August 2006 19:29 GMT

US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff appeared relaxed, even amused, during a Washington press conference where he explained the American response to the UK airport terror emergency.

A few security inconveniences will be put in place until the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) figures out how better to deal with the threat of liquid explosives that the British believe are now in play. (For a good primer on improvised explosives using household chemicals, see this Naval Postgraduate School thesis.

The new measures are confined to preventing US travelers from carrying liquids into the aircraft cabin, with exceptions for common-sense items such as drugs and infant formula. Otherwise, US passengers will be permitted to carry the usual items on board.

The overall terror threat level for airlines has been raised from yellow to orange, except that the level for UK flights bound for the USA has been raised to red. When asked why DHS had made this exception, Chertoff explained that it was meant to harmonize the US assessment with the British assessment: a polite way of saying that, for now, America is willing to humor UK officials.

Chertoff's demeanor and body language belied any notion that there's a serious emergency. This means either that US officials are quite underwhelmed by the UK's evidence of a feasible terrorist plot, or that the US government's casual indifference toward catastrophic loss of life and property, as exhibited when New Orleans was destroyed, is the new American attitude.

In favor of option one, we have a recent history of British eagerness to announce breakthroughs in the struggle against the forces of darkness, with nothing to show for it. We have Jean Charles de Menezes shot to bits at point-blank range for behaving oddly just after the 7/7 atrocity. We have the imaginary ricin plot. We have the imaginary chemical bomb plot. And we have the imaginary red-mercury suitcase nuke plot
.
There's been a lot of crying wolf in London, so it should surprise no one to find that the Americans have heard enough of it. (Although, to be fair, Washington has trumpeted its share of counterterrorist breakthroughs involving semi-harmless losers, but that's no reason for them to buy into anyone else's.)

In favor of option two, we have Hurricane Katrina, heckuva-job-Brownie, and government indifference toward mass suffering, death, and property destruction on a scale that makes 9/11 look like a garden party. This suggests that 9/11 served its purpose by leading to endless mass suffering, death, and property destruction in Iraq, which is all it ever was worth to the Bush Administration.

According to this hypothesis, phony agonizing over 9/11 got Junior his longed-for war in Iraq, so there's no further need to shed crocodile tears and whine publicly about the blood of innocents. To a government willing to brush off the destruction of an entire US city, and to preside over the destruction of a foreign nation, a few planes blowing up over the Atlantic is small potatoes.

Whether we're seeing the true Bushie callousness laid bare, or a healthy American skepticism toward HMG's repeated exhibition of a phony terrorist menace as a pretext to introduce the Kafka-esque legislation favored by Tony Blair and John Reid, will be answered by and by. There will be successful prosecutions, or there will be official excuses verging on an apology, but not quite amounting to one.

We will see. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/10/usa_not_impressed/

 

[La La]

did anyone catch georgie's speech? i only saw about 2 seconds of the end.

 

[Johnnyc]

did anyone catch georgie's speech? i only saw about 2 seconds of the end.

Yeah, he said something along the lines of "You English guys rock hard! Osama is a gay! Pass me that bucket of chicken!"

 

[Unicron]

The word Islamofascist always makes me smile for some reason. I think it's becasue it reminds me of that bit in The Simpsons when McBain was flying the fighter jet against the Commienazis

 

[hugh]

I don't find it that hard to believe that some guys were planning to blow up some planes. Seems more plausible to me than that it's some big conspiracy, the main evidence for which seems to be that some American was looking "relaxed". I try and look relaxed all the time. It doesn't mean I'm not taking things seriously.

 

[dudley]

hmmm, i've never seen hugh and osama bin laden in the same room.....hmmm

 

[Lord Damian]

i may be stating the obvious, but to me this just looks like a boxer prodding for weak spots. as soon as they find a hidden weakness and a foolproof way to exploit it, we're going to see fireworks.

 

[Franco]

Posted this in the general section already:

Call me paranoid but:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1841140,00.html
"There was no indication that security services expected an attack today, but it had been decided to move against the terror suspects overnight."

and this:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1841019,00.html
"John Reid yesterday accused the government's anti-terror critics of putting national security at risk by their failure to recognise the serious nature of the threat facing Britain. "They just don't get it," he said.The home secretary yesterday gave the thinktank Demos his strongest hint yet that a new round of anti-terror legislation is on the way this autumn by warning that traditional civil liberty arguments were not so much wrong as just made for another age."

Makes you wonder...

Reid knew some sort of opperation was imminent.

'Sometimes we may have to modify some of our freedoms'

Warning: Why Reid changed his speech

Friday August 11, 2006
The Guardian


John Reid was due to give a major speech on immigration on Wednesday as part of his ongoing restructure of the Home Office. Instead, he devoted his address to terrorism, speaking passionately about the nature of the threat and how critics of police and government tactics were putting national security at risk.


"They just don't get it," he said. "Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the modern world," he told the Demos thinktank.

Mr Reid may not have known then that the police were going to have to act within hours of his speech, but he would have known about the details of the plot and that the police and the security service were going to act, probably within days.


He said that Britain was facing "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second world war" and that the country was being confronted by a new breed of ruthless "unconstrained international terrorists".

Everyone across the political, media, judicial and public spectrums needed to understand the depth and magnitude of the threat, he said.

Mr Reid's targets were judges, political commentators and British politicians.
He pointed out that laws designed to deport and detain had been repeatedly weakened by liberal opposition. Drawing on recent research by Demos, he added: "If more violent attacks on UK citizens are to be stopped, the public, corporations - everyone - will have to do its part to help."

 

[pete]

 

[piratio]

Oh pete... you're such a minx.