Britain's airline terror plot: Questions that need to be answered

  • Thread starter Thread starter the rabbit
  • Start date Start date
T

the rabbit

Guest
Britain's airline terror plot: Questions that need to be answered

Hi
As we are in the early stages of this latest concoction of BS thought i would post this from

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/347526.html

The article from Joe yesterday said it all really and even had me chuckling in parts.Anyway heres indymedias take on it so far.

Britain's airline terror plot: Questions that need to be answered

by the editorial board | 11.08.2006 07:37 | Repression | London | World

The claim that American and British security forces have thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up commercial flights between Britain and the United States should not be accepted uncritically. It is impossible to determine at this point whether or not such an attack was in the offing, although the mass media have, as usual, reported the assertions of the British and American governments as indisputable fact, without bothering to ask for any specific information that would substantiate the official story.


The British police statement that the alleged plotters aimed to "create mass murder on an unimaginable scale" by blowing up mid-flight an unspecified number of aircraft is chilling. The far-reaching security measures that have been implemented-including the shutdown of London's Heathrow Airport and an indefinite ban on carry-on luggage-add to the climate of fear and apprehension.

At a time such as this-in the midst of spectacular claims from London and Washington, a media barrage supporting them, and a massive disruption of commercial flights resulting from extreme security measures-it is all the more imperative that people not suspend their capacity for critical thought and political judgement.
Raids in the early hours of Thursday morning on homes and business premises in London and the West Midlands resulted in 21 arrests. Spokesmen for the US and British governments asserted that those arrested were involved in the most significant terrorist plot since 9/11.

Later reports said that 24 people had been arrested in Britain and more had been detained in Pakistan. Among those arrested were a Muslim charity worker and a Heathrow Airport employee with an all-area access pass, according to Britain's Channel 4 News. Five suspects in the plot are still at large, according to ABC News, which cited US sources.

BBC News reported Thursday evening that the arrests were the result of a long-standing investigation coordinated between the US, British and Pakistani governments. British Home Secretary John Reid in a press conference earlier on Thursday said Prime Minister Tony Blair had briefed President George Bush on the impending arrests and security measures over the weekend.

Subsequent reports claimed the plotters had planned to target simultaneously up to ten aircraft from three US carriers by smuggling onboard liquid chemical explosives disguised as beverages or electronic devices.
US intelligence officials said the plotters hoped to stage a "dry run" today (Friday) and the actual attack would have followed days later. A senior congressional source claimed the plotters planned to mix a sports drink with a peroxide-based paste to make an "explosive cocktail" that could be triggered by an MP3 player or cell phone.
President George Bush made a brief statement mid-day Thursday that was calculated to heighten public anxieties and exploit the alleged terror plot to justify the panoply of reactionary policies his administration has pursued since 9/11 in the name of the "war on terror."

Speaking on an airport runway in Green Bay, Wisconsin, he said that the thwarted plot was a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom." He suggested that the plot vindicated the measures-massive domestic spying, military tribunals, detentions without trial-taken by his administration to "protect the American people," and went on to warn that "it is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America."

The World Socialist Web Site has no information that allows us to make a definitive judgement on the existence or non-existence of a terrorist plot on the scale claimed. However, it is the responsibility of the US and British governments to produce the facts that would substantiate their allegations and justify the extreme security measures they have taken, and to present these facts to the public in a clear and concise manner.
They have produced no such factual account or substantiation.

Neither the White House nor Downing Street has any right to expect people to accept their claims at face value, or place confidence in any of their statements. The war against Iraq was legitimised on the basis of false claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. These lies have destroyed forever the credibility of Bush and Blair.

If it is true that such a heinous crime was being planned, the responsibility for this ultimately rests with the policies pursued by Washington and London. Ever since 9/11, both Bush and Blair have employed the mantra of the "war on terror" as a cover for their predatory war aims in the Middle East, immensely intensifying anti-American and anti-British sentiment within the Muslim world. At the same time, the "war on terror" has been used domestically as the pretext for an unprecedented assault on democratic rights.

Faced with a worsening debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq, and massive international opposition to their support for Israel's devastation of Lebanon, both governments have an interest in perpetuating an atmosphere of hysteria. Such a climate serves to intimidate their opponents and justify ever more draconian measures at home and abroad.

In point of fact, the official accounts in Britain of the alleged terror plot lack any specific or verifiable facts and are remarkably short on detail. The statements by American officials are no better when it comes to serious substantiation. They are, however, more detailed in their claims.

US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a televised news conference that the plot was "a very sophisticated plan and operation" and was close to fruition. "It was not a circle with a handful of people sitting around and dreaming,'' he said. "They had accumulated the capability necessary and they were well on their way.''
The plot appeared to have been aimed at US carriers flying out of Heathrow, he continued. It was "international in scope" and suggestive of Al Qaeda.

He did not give a specific date for the timing of the plan, but said it may have been before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. "I can't tell you they had a particular date in mind," he said. "Nor can I tell you that they would have waited that long. This was quite close to the execution date."
Chertoff offered no explanation of how security services knew that a terror attack was imminent when they didn't know the target date for its execution.

This is by no means the only question mark hanging over official accounts.
Britain's Home Secretary Reid gave the impression in his press conference that the evidence prompting the arrests came from the UK, and CNN reported that information gathered after recent arrests in Pakistan convinced British investigators they had to act urgently to stop the plot. However, Britain's Channel 4 reported that UK authorities had acted based on intelligence provided by the CIA.

Moreover, if Blair was in discussions with Bush over the weekend about an "imminent" terrorist attack, why did he still leave for his holiday in Barbados on Tuesday? And given that the plot is said to have targeted planes, why did the security services allow him to do so?

And if the threat posed by the plot was considered dangerous enough to warrant raising the terror alert in the UK from "severe" to "critical" and to code red in the US, why were no arrests made for five days? And why was the terror alert only raised after the arrests were made and not before?
No such questions have been asked by the media. And yet recent months have seen a number of alleged terrorist plots-in the US, Canada and Australia-that were supposedly thwarted by the security services. In each case, mass arrests were made of people who, according to the indictments, had merely discussed terrorist acts. No concrete plans were discovered, no weapons or explosives seized. And in most of these cases, the supposed plots were initiated and encouraged by government informers who acted as agent provocateurs and entrapped the alleged conspirators.

In the case of July's so-called "tunnel bomb" plot in New York, the purported conspirators were foreign nationals who had never set foot in the US.

As for the political utility of the current terror scare, it should be noted that only hours before Thursday's raids, British Home Secretary Reid gave a major speech in London in which he accused opponents of the government's anti-democratic legislation of undermining the "war on terror."

In the face of what he called "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second world war," Reid decried those who "don't get it," blaming them for the fact that "we remain unable to adapt our institutions and legal orthodoxy as fast as we need to."

Making it clear that the required "adaptation" meant the gutting of traditional democratic rights, he added: "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."
 
<< the arrests were the result of a long-standing investigation >>

Here's a bit of a paradox. I heard a "security expert" on the radio. The interviewer said, "if we already knew about combustible-liquid technology, why weren't liquids banned a long time ago." The silly expert replied, "well, we knew it was possible, but it was probably thought to be so outlandish that it would never happen." OK, so then she foolishly launches into, "but things like box cutters should've been banned a long time ago."

So, which is it? Ban everything that's ever been used to harm or hi-jack aircraft, or ban everything that we know could be used to harm or hi-jack aircraft? If the latter, we'll all have to submit to pre-flight MRI and stomach pump, and fly in airline-supplied tunics or jumpsuits.

If the investigation was long-standing, surely they knew the intended method of exploding the jets. So, why, if public safety is really the concern, did they wait until the announcement of the "foiled plot" to institute the no-liquids measures, which they're already calling "new rules." Sure, they could say that instituting the measure earlier would've tipped off the terr'ists, but more truthfully, it would've ticked off the air-traveling public who would never have accepted it without "proof" of its "necessity."

And "Islamic fascists?" Here we go with re-definition of terms again. Mussolini himself defined fascism as the merger of gov't and corporate power. The so-called terr'ists have, ostensibly, neither governments nor corporations behind them, making them precisely the opposite of fascists. If that just doesn't get your goat!

Who DOES have gov't and corporate behind them? Perhaps the speaker. SO, by using the term, we have the perpetrator accusing the victim. Psychopathy.
 
Interesting how they are linking it to Afghanistan. Will there be calls to go back and 'do the job properly'? I wonder how much the 'dry run' would've cost - surely cheaper to 'just do it'?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/11082006/140/britain-critical-terror-alert.html

Britain Still On 'Critical' Terror Alert
Sky News Friday August 11, 04:53 PM

Pakistan has named a British national arrested there over the plot to blow up passenger jets and officials there have said there are signs of an "Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda connection". According to Associated Press, Pakistan has said Rashid Rauf was arrested there.

It comes as Britain remains on "critical" alert and anti-terror police question 24 people accused of plotting to bring down as many as 10 transatlantic flights.

Nineteen of the suspects, said to have been targeting planes flying from Britain to the United States, have been named and had their assets frozen.

There are claims the attacks were to be carried out on Wednesday, August 16, after a dry run, possibly over the weekend.

It is also being reported that the original information about the alleged plot was a tip-off from within the Muslim community.

US government officials say a British intelligence officer infiltrated the group said to have been planning the attacks.

Three of those arrested are said to be converts to Islam - Abdul Waheed, previously known as Don Stewart-Whyte, Ibrahim Savant, who changed his first name from Oliver, and Umar Islam.

The names and details of the 19 whose assets are affected have been published by the Bank of England, which froze their cash on the advice of the police and security services.

Security officials say two British nationals of Pakistani origin were among seven people arrested in Pakistan prior to the discovery of the plot.

They were seized about eight to 10 days ago.

Five Pakistani citizens have also been arrested on suspicion of working as "facilitators" for the two Britons.

Home Secretary John Reid said the terror alert was remaining at "critical" - meaning an attack could be imminent - as a precautionary measure. He also said it was important for people to show the "tolerance and resilience" that was "in the nature of British people".

Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander said extra security measures on flights would continue "only as long as the situation demands". Air travellers continue to face delays.

The EU has call a meeting for next week to discuss aviation security.

Police are continuing to question 24 people, all Muslims, who were arrested in London, the Thames Valley and Birmingham.

One of the suspects is 17. Another is a young mother who has been allowed to keep her baby with her in custody.

A US TV network reported five suspects are still on the run in the UK. However, a police source said officers were confident the key figures had been arrested.

The would-be bombers' plan was to detonate liquid-based explosive devices smuggled in hand luggage on aircraft leaving UK airports for the US.

A US official said they planned to use a peroxide-based solution that would ignite when sparked by a camera flash or another electronic device.
 
PS: Looks like OBL is being finally laid to rest. Obviously the emphasis has moved onto producing (in)credible threats with loads of fear.
 
What i can see very clearly now is that if one cant get the laws through restricting freedoms,then incidents and set ups like this get them up and running without having to have the law lords to ok them...

carrying toothpaste and the likes in clear plastic bags!!!!!!!!!!!!! what nonsense.

I can see the next one coming,the one they used in the olden days when unions where in their birth.That of not being able to gather in groups of more than three or more on the streets.Hey why not?
 
the rabbit said:
I can see the next one coming,the one they used in the olden days when unions where in their birth.That of not being able to gather in groups of more than three or more on the streets.Hey why not?
The thing is, you don't need three people to blow something up - only one person to carry the explosives.
 
I wasn't too sure where to post this:

http://www(dot)waynemadsenreport.com/

Aug. 11, 2006 -- UPDATED. According to knowledgeable sources in the UK and other countries, the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new "terror" scare to avert the public's eyes away from Blair's increasing political woes. British law enforcement; neo-con and intelligence operatives in the United States, Israel, and Britain; and Rupert Murdoch's global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 "Oplan Bojinka" plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the United States. In the latest plot, it is reported that liquid bombs were to be detonated on 10 trans-Atlantic planes outbound from Britain to the United States.

British and American authorities permitted a man with a liquid bomb to board a U.S.-bound flight in Heathrow on Aug. 6 -- the pilot foiled secret UK-US attempt to hype an incident en route to or at Boston Logan.

The London terror plan was "known" last Sunday by British and American authorities, according to the Indian press. American Airlines flight 109 from London Heathrow to Boston boarded a family of five, however, after the plane left Heathrow authorities determined that the father appeared on a British suspect list drawn up after the 7/7 London transit attacks. At first, the pilot was instructed to fly all the way to Boston where U.S. authorities could claim credit for apprehending the suspect. However, the pilot, fearing for the safety of his passengers and crew, refused and quickly returned to Heathrow without informing the passengers. Once on the ground, it was discovered that the male had in his carry-on baggage the type of combination liquid explosive and electronic device now being hyped by the British and American media.

British sources report that the reason for the delay in informing the airlines and traveling public about the liquid bomb on the American flight was to maximize the beneficial political impact for Blair and George W. Bush, both plummeting in the polls from the situations in Iraq and Lebanon.

Earlier this week, two employees of Murdoch's London tabloid, News of the World, were charged with hacking into the voice and text cell phone messages of three members of the staff of Clarence House, the residence of Princes Charles, William, and Harry. One of those charged with the wiretapping was Clive Goodman, the Royals editor of the News of the World. The same paper earlier tried to politically damage two anti-Iraq war British politicians -- Scottish Socialist Tommy Sheridan and Respect Party MP George Galloway. The paper charges that Sheridan was unfaithful to his wife by going to swinger's clubs. He won a quarter million dollar lawsuit against the paper. Galloway was confronted by Mazher Mahmood, an individual who uses the moniker "Fake Sheik," who posed as a wealthy Arab businessman and tried unsuccessfully to get Galloway to accept cash and make anti-Semitic remarks. In fact, Mahmood was and continues to be a reporter for News of the World, his continued employment approved by Murdoch. Goodman has merely been suspended by Murdoch but he has not been fired.

Murdoch uncovered Prince Charles-Gordon Brown plot to oust Blair. Phony terror plan cooked up to derail political coup plans.

However, what prompted Murdoch and Blair to hype a new global "terror" threat was what Murdoch learned from eavesdropping on the phone calls of Prince Charles' staff at the future king's office, home, and limousine. The eavesdropping revealed that Charles was working with Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, who is to the left of Blair, to conduct the same type of political maneuver that John Major used to oust Margaret Thatcher from office. London's left-wing Mayor, Ken Livingston, was also in on the Charles-Brown plan and it was expected that in return for his support, Livingston would get a senior position in a Brown cabinet -- a development that sent shock waves through the neo-con circles in London, Washington, and Jerusalem, including British Home Secretary John Reid and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The Charles-Brown plan was briefed by Blair to Bush during the former's recent visit to Washington. However, because the phony terror plot was known to both leaders -- they decided to be away on vacation when the terror plot was "uncovered." Bush is vacationing at his Crawford, Texas "ranch," while Blair is on vacation in Barbados, staying at Sir Cliff Richard's luxurious villa.

After Blair met with Bush in Washington, he flew to California where on July 30 he attended Murdoch's News Corporation private corporate executive conference at the posh Inn at Spanish Bay golf resort in Pebble Beach. Blair met with Murdoch, Israeli former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Newt Gingrich, and various Fox, Star, and Sky News executives. The final touches were agreed to by Blair and Murdoch on how the fake terror plot would play out in Murdoch's media empire.
 
found this online yesterday..

If Al Qaeda Is Behind Terrorist Plots, Who's Behind Al Qaeda? by Jim Marrs

On Thursday, August 10, 2006, British authorities announced they had thwarted a terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up several commercial aircraft bound for the United States using explosives smuggled in carry-on baggage. Carry-on luggage was banned in Britain as well as nearly all forms of liquid except for baby formula.

British officials said 21 persons had been arrested in connection with the bombing plot but declined to identify any of them, only stating that they appear to be of Pakistani origin. They said the suspects were homegrown, but it was not clear if the suspects were all British citizens. US Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff immediately said the plot had all the earmarks of an al Qaeda operation but admitted it was too early in the investigation to reach any conclusions. Yet, it was not too early for authorities to say they had caught the main suspects.

News of the plot caused tightened security procedures at all airports, not only in Britain abut also the United States. US air carriers said that while carry-on luggage was still allowed, no liquids, including toothpaste, could be carried onto aircraft. And news of the plot dominated the news channels, distracting from the aggression being practiced in the Middle East, the slumping US economy and the growing public awareness of government complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Interestingly enough, both British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush were both out of pocket when the plot was announced. Blair was vacationing in the Caribbean and Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Chertoff, who seemed to have more information on the bombing attempts than the British officials who presumably briefed him on the case, said the plotters were in the final stage of planning. We were really getting quite close to the execution phase, he said. No one else in a position of authority and knowledge would speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the situation, according to the Associated Press.

On ABC television, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke reminded viewers that this was a carbon copy of the 1995 planned terrorist attack formulated by al Qaeda in the Philippines. These plotters also proposed crashing hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center, a fact conveniently forgotten when Bush officials claimed no one could have suspected such an event prior to 9/11. He also mentioned the broken plot in Miami in June, 2006, where seven men were arrested and accused of plotting to bomb Chicagos Sears Tower. Clarke said that British Intelligence is very good and, in fact, had infiltrated the terrorist sleeper cells.

What is the full dimension of the attack? asked Clarke. Many think this is the true question. Who is truly behind these homegrown terrorists?

In the Miami case, it was an FBI informant posing as a representative of al Qaeda, just as the British intelligence agents in the current case. The seven young men arrested in this FBI sting operation were all from Miami's Liberty City, one of the poorest ghettoes in the US. No weapons, explosives or other paraphernalia was found. All evidence in the case came from the al Qaeda representative, according to the governments indictment - who, of course, was the FBI informant. Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline stated, There was never any credible threat to the Sears Tower at all. Even FBI Deputy Director John Pistole agreed that this group was more aspirational than operational.

In May, 2006, Pakistani immigrant Shahawar Siraj was found guilty in New York City of plotting to blow up the Herald Square subway station. Court evidence indicated this plot was based entirely on suggestions from an FBI informant, who taunted the defendant with photographs of Abu Ghraib torture victims and demanded to know how, as a Muslim, he could fail to take action. Two years ago, in Albany, New York, the FBI recruited a Pakistani immigrant to ensnare two other immigrants in a fictitious scheme to help a non-existent person buy a weapon for a fake terrorist plot. The immigrant was promised leniency on minor fraud charges in exchange for his cooperation.

In view of these obvious spurious provocations coupled with growing suspicions among the public that the 9/11 attacks themselves were either allowed or conducted by the US Government, Clarkes rhetorical question becomes even more significant - What is the full dimension of the attack?

As in any good crime detection, one must ask, Who benefits from the crime? Who has the means, motive and opportunity to conduct this crime?

One good terrorist strike does not necessitate others. The deaths of 9/11 were enough to convince the public that terrorism was abroad in the land. Further fatalities are not needed to further diminish individual liberties, just the continued threat of such. This can easily be arranged by government agent provocateurs.

For example, say a Pakistani working for British intelligence convenes a group of Pakistanis already bitter about the discrimination they face in Britain. They are taught by the agent to mix chemicals to make explosives and there is much planning to sneak the explosives onto airliners. Then, the trap is sprung and the terrorist threat is thwarted by our brave and vigilant intelligence organizations.

Security everywhere is tightened, liberties further constrained, government budgets increased and everyone is happy except perhaps for the poor patsies who spent the rest of their life in prison trying to figure out how their great revolutionary plan went wrong.

When these acts of terrorism are announced, we should all demand truthful answers to questions such as:



Which individual initiated the terrorists plans?

Who did this individual truly represent?

Who supplied the funds for the terrorists activities and where did such funds originate?
We must not allow ourselves to be played for fools.
 
AdPop said:
And "Islamic fascists?" Here we go with re-definition of terms again.
Exactly. GW was obviously projecting. Although, he may not know the definition of "fascist". He just knows that people call him that name. As Joe alluded to in his humorous piece on this issue: are there any "Islamic fascists"?? Where are they??
 
i didnt even think to ask.. is jim marrs a friendly info source for you folk.. or is he considered cointelpro?
 
As far as I have been able to determine, Jim Marrs is a decent sort, trying to do a good job, and subject to the same issues we all face: that the PTB produce so many lies that you have to wade through a swamp to get to the truth. I really enjoyed his book on UFOs and thought he did a pretty good job dealing with the lies and disinfo. After reading that book, I obtained a copy of his book on JFK which I haven't read yet but am looking forward to it. None of this proves anything about Marrs, but I'm open about him.
 
Back
Top Bottom