[mojo2]

A terror plot is exposed by the policies many American liberals oppose.

This is what we've been talking about these past several months.

Let's emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008785

[Chuckit]

Bomb everyone on earth. That'll stop the terrorists.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Bomb everyone on earth. That'll stop the terrorists.

What a kidder!

In short, Democrats who claim to want "focus" on the war on terror have wanted it fought without the intelligence, interrogation and detention tools necessary to win it. And if they cite "cooperation" with our allies as some kind of magical answer, they should be reminded that the British and other European legal systems generally permit far more intrusive surveillance and detention policies than the Bush Administration has ever contemplated. Does anyone think that when the British interrogate those 20 or so suspects this week that they will recoil at harsh or stressful questioning?

The real lesson of yesterday's antiterror success in Britain is that the threat remains potent, and that the U.S. government needs to be using every legal tool to defeat it. At home, that includes intelligence and surveillance and data-mining, and abroad it means all of those as well as an aggressive military plan to disrupt and kill terrorists where they live so they are constantly on defense rather than plotting to blow up U.S.-bound airliners.

As the time since 9/11 has passed, many of America's elites have begun to portray U.S. government policies as a greater threat than the terrorists themselves. George Soros and others have said this explicitly, and their political allies in Congress and the media have staged a relentless campaign against the very practices that saved innocent lives this week. We doubt that many Americans who will soon board an airplane agree.

[Chuckit]

Random cacophony of quotes for the lose, Abe.

[Millennium]

If these methods really stopped this plot, then it wasn't worth it.

[tie]

Why is this a surprise? We wouldn't have stopped this plot if it weren't for the war in Iraq. Liberals are all traitors anyway, practically by definition (since they are pro- flag burning). If Clinton had secured Saddam's WMD, then maybe 9/11 would never have happened either.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

If these methods really stopped this plot, then it wasn't worth it.

"We doubt that many Americans who will soon board an airplane agree."

[Chuckit]

Have you somehow got Rule 8 backwards in your mind? Like your posts are only supposed to consist of other people's words?

[BRussell]

Hmm. everything I've read said this was found out by a British citizen who was suspicious of one of his friends. Like this:

The original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain, according to a British intelligence official.

"The plotters intended this to be a second September 11th," said U.S. Homeland Security adviser Frances Townsend. "It's a frightening example of multiple, simultaneous attacks for explosions of planes that would have caused the death of thousands."

The lead

The tip was from a person who had been concerned about the activities of an acquaintance after the July 7, 2005, terror attacks in London, the official said.

U.S. government officials say there were two phone calls made from London to the United States recently by suspects. Those calls were tracked down and investigated. But there is no evidence of any involvement of people in the United States in the alleged plot.

In any case, I think the liberal position is that we engage in legal intelligence-gathering, not that we engage in no intelligence-gathering. It's possible that legal intelligence-gathering is less effective than, well, whatever the British were doing (was it not legal?), but we should follow the law. Right?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Random cacophony of quotes for the lose, Abe.

Funny, cause I was just about to ask if mojo2 was abe.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Funny, cause I was just about to ask if mojo2 was abe.

There are two or three of us who share identities. Some of you have recognized the changes from one of us to the other. Sometimes one of us or another gets a bit excited. But the content is what's important.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Have you somehow got Rule 8 backwards in your mind? Like your posts are only supposed to consist of other people's words?

Less chance of getting banned this way.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mojo2

There are two or three of us who share identities. Some of you have recognized the changes from one of us to the other. Sometimes one of us or another gets a bit excited. But the content is what's important.

I suggest you go see a psychotherapist or doctor about your schizo, multi-personality disorder.

[Dakar]

You can't tell Abe's PL banning is over?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Hmm. everything I've read said this was found out by a British citizen who was suspicious of one of his friends. Like this: In any case, I think the liberal position is that we engage in legal intelligence-gathering, not that we engage in no intelligence-gathering. It's possible that legal intelligence-gathering is less effective than, well, whatever the British were doing (was it not legal?), but we should follow the law. Right?

The name of the conspiracy theory school you attend will one day be as tortured and hackneyed as the 9/11 theorists. And you'll always be able to exist in that limbo of ecstasy where you can't be proven wrong but you'll never be able to be right yet you'll have no shortage of practice at debating the issue.

Over and over and over again.

But, I'll say it again and maybe it will keep you up at night or something neat like that...

You are mistaken.

It was and is legal.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar

You can't tell Abe's PL banning is over?

I'd kind of assumed not, since he hasn't used that name in here since the ban.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

The name of the conspiracy theory school you attend will one day be as tortured and hackneyed as the 9/11 theorists. And you'll always be able to exist in that limbo of ecstasy where you can't be proven wrong but you'll never be able to be right yet you'll have no shortage of practice at debating the issue.

Over and over and over again.

But, I'll say it again and maybe it will keep you up at night or something neat like that...

You are mistaken.

It was and is legal.

I don't really understand what you just posted, but it made me feel how I used to feel back in college after dropping acid. And I thank you for that.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't really understand what you just posted, but it made me feel how I used to feel back in college after dropping acid. And I thank you for that.

Do you see trails?

[jckalen]

Actually, someone DID tip off British intelligence, which is how they decided to start monitoring this group. If Britian had been monitoring EVERYONE in the country and happened to flush them out, you would have a point.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by tie

Why is this a surprise? We wouldn't have stopped this plot if it weren't for the war in Iraq. Liberals are all traitors anyway, practically by definition (since they are pro- flag burning). If Clinton had secured Saddam's WMD, then maybe 9/11 would never have happened either.

That's almost a , except there's morons who actually believe all that.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Do you see trails?

I was! But it's over now, and I'm going to try to avoid reading that post, lest I fall under the spell again.

But let me ask you this. 1) Do you agree that the WSJ piece is wrong, and that this plot was disrupted by an informant, and not illegal eavesdropping?

2) These were British citizens, I believe. Do you think it's possible that they are a good example of the type of terrorists that liberals have claimed our current foreign policy is creating?

[BRussell]

Let me add a 3) The British use warrants for surveillance, and presumably did in this case too. Doesn't that prove that the kinds of surveillance that liberals want works?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I'd kind of assumed not, since he hasn't used that name in here since the ban.

He's obviously decided to use the mojo2 persona, possibly as a condition of his release.

[mojo2]

Before I get around to answering your posts, here's a response from another reader to the wsj piece:

The Choice
Les Slurzberg - Jersey City, N.J.

Next November there will be a clear choice between two completely different approaches, one Republican and the other Democrat, on how to provide national security and fight the war on terror. Voters will only have themselves to blame if they chose unwisely.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

He's obviously decided to use the mojo2 persona, possibly as a condition of his release.

I missed you.

[spindler]

The article the OP linked to doesn't show in any way, shape or form, that the same success wouldn't have happened using the pre 9/11 laws. If the British counterparts of Bush's changes played a part, I'd like to know the specific details.

All it says is that "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."

This is misleading. The main factor was that THE GROUP HAD BEEN INFILTRATED WITH A PLANTED MEMBER, which is a conventional, pre-911 technique. I'm sure you can monitor KNOWN TERRORISTS, as opposed to currently innocent civilians legally anyway.

Again, if extreme rules made a difference, I'd like to know. But nothing in that article explained that. I'm sure Republicans will point out the details if they have a real case to make.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by spindler

The article the OP linked to doesn't show in any way, shape or form, that the same success wouldn't have happened using the pre 9/11 laws. If the British counterparts of Bush's changes played a part, I'd like to know the specific details.

All it says is that "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."

This is misleading. The main factor was that THE GROUP HAD BEEN INFILTRATED WITH A PLANTED MEMBER, which is a conventional, pre-911 technique. I'm sure you can monitor KNOWN TERRORISTS, as opposed to currently innocent civilians legally anyway.

Again, if extreme rules made a difference, I'd like to know. But nothing in that article explained that. I'm sure Republicans will point out the details if they have a real case to make.

No. Because those who actually know the details would be divulging them for no good reason than to satisfy your side's nagging and whining and partisan sniping. They won't do that. So believe what you want.

[Chuckit]

Weak. You come out with this really strong claim, and then people tell you to back up your bluster, and you're like, "Uh, well, you'll just have to believe me."

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I was! But it's over now, and I'm going to try to avoid reading that post, lest I fall under the spell again.

But let me ask you this. 1) Do you agree that the WSJ piece is wrong, and that this plot was disrupted by an informant, and not illegal eavesdropping?

2) These were British citizens, I believe. Do you think it's possible that they are a good example of the type of terrorists that liberals have claimed our current foreign policy is creating?

1. No; no comment.

2. Gee, that means that just ANY ole citizen of ANY country and ANY nationality and ANY religion might one day decide to blow up 10 airliners, right? No? Then you mean it's JUST Islamic jihadists?

Ok. And what was the big bad terrible Bill Clinton doing to offend these terrorists when they were attacking America and American interests in the 1990's, hmm?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Weak. You come out with this really strong claim, and then people tell you to back up your bluster, and you're like, "Uh, well, you'll just have to believe me."

See how difficult it is for you to understand that certain things shouldn't be public knowledge?

That's proof your side can't be trusted with power or secrets.

You just can't imagine that there are things I might tell you which secret foreign agents might be able to use to hurt America, can you?

[Chuckit]

It's fine if you think they shouldn't be public knowledge. But then you shouldn't boast about them.

You start this thread going, "Look, this wouldn't have been possible with traditional security measures!" Somebody else says, "Prove it." You reply, "Well, we don't actually know the facts." Which means your original claim is kind of made up, doesn't it?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by mojo2

1. No; no comment.

I love it! So even though publicly they've said this was an informant, it was really mass warrantless eavesdropping, and therefore a national security secret. And then, this British national security secret was leaked to a US conservative op-ed writer to bash US liberals! And this train of thought leads you to say that liberals can't be trusted with national security secrets!

2. Gee, that means that just ANY ole citizen of ANY country and ANY nationality and ANY religion might one day decide to blow up 10 airliners, right? No? Then you mean it's JUST Islamic jihadists?

Ok. And what was the big bad terrible Bill Clinton doing to offend these terrorists when they were attacking America and American interests in the 1990's, hmm?

You're right, terrorism was present before, and it almost certainly would be present today no matter what. But it has dramatically increased, and the ideology has gained increasing popular support, even from people like these British citizens who should naturally oppose them. And that has happened as a direct result of Bush's policies, IMO. It should have been so easy after 9/11 to show the Middle East that we're not the bad guys, these extremists among them are the bad guys.

We need to see this as a guerilla war, but on a global scale. The goal should be to go after the "guerillas," and only them, while driving public opinion against them in the countries from which they come. Our policies are, to put it lightly, not succeeding in that purpose. I find it odd, too. Republicans are so good at dividing the American public with wedge issues, you'd think they'd get this in foreign policy.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

terrorism was present before... But it has dramatically increased, and the ideology has gained increasing popular support, even from people like these British citizens who should naturally oppose them. And that has happened as a direct result of Bush's policies, IMO.

That's idiotic.

State sponsorship of terror groups as proxies and communications advances of the last 15 years (moble phones, internet, etc.) are what have changed the game. Bush's policies are in reaction to this.

[voodoo]

Oh.. another Rule 8 violaton by aberdeenwriter! Wheee

V

[Volanges]

Originally Posted by mojo2

A terror plot is exposed by the policies many American liberals oppose.

This is what we've been talking about these past several months.



http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008785

utter bullshit -- what actual proof did they base their position on? NONE! (*gasp* no way! NOT the WSJ bu$hshit editorial page!)

Legal surveillance, not illegal eavesdropping, stopped the U.K. terrorist attacks

[tie]

It is true that the WSJ has the dumbest editorial page out there.

But I've been in contact with spacefreak's secret government source, and he told me that mojo2 is right. It really was wholesale warrantless eavesdropping which caught these guys!

Anyway, I'm just happy we're spending $2 trillion on the war in Iraq, so, as Bush is fond of saying, we are fighting these guys over there and not here at home!

[Volanges]

I think you're full of it. Piss or get off the pot and show us the money.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by Volanges

I think you're full of it. Piss or get off the pot and show us the money.

1/ The Political Forum is the piss pot.

2/ The terrorists have won.

3/ Welcome 'Big Brother' the 'rights' answer.

[spindler]

mojo2 wrote:

"No. Because those who actually know the details would be divulging them for no good reason than to satisfy your side's nagging and whining and partisan sniping. They won't do that. So believe what you want."

So, here's what your saying. Your side has completely won the argument because post 9/11 tactics were used to prevent a terrorist attack. Yet, even though you have clear cut factual evidence that your side is correct, you won't divulge it. You're so sure you won the argument and the other side are idiots, you don't even have to present your case.

And liberals obviously hate America. I guess liberals are simply arguing against the erosion of civil liberties just for the sheer fun of it and our hatred towards America. Because you say you have evidence that your ideas were solely responsible for preventing an attack, but you won't present it so we can see that we were wrong. We obviously hate America so much that we would continue on with our ways even if we were factuallyproven wrong, so you don't need to show us anything.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Volanges

I think you're full of it. Piss or get off the pot and show us the money.

Discussions of your favorite fetish are not welcomed here. Try the golden showers for profit website or something. And I don't smoke the marijuana, ok?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's fine if you think they shouldn't be public knowledge. But then you shouldn't boast about them.

You start this thread going, "Look, this wouldn't have been possible with traditional security measures!" Somebody else says, "Prove it." You reply, "Well, we don't actually know the facts." Which means your original claim is kind of made up, doesn't it?

No.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Volanges

utter bullshit -- what actual proof did they base their position on? NONE! (*gasp* no way! NOT the WSJ bu$hshit editorial page!)

Legal surveillance, not illegal eavesdropping, stopped the U.K. terrorist attacks

Only commies, anarchists or islamofascists hate the WSJ. Which are you?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's fine if you think they shouldn't be public knowledge. But then you shouldn't boast about them.

You start this thread going, "Look, this wouldn't have been possible with traditional security measures!" Somebody else says, "Prove it." You reply, "Well, we don't actually know the facts." Which means your original claim is kind of made up, doesn't it?

Well, how about this?

Ananova:

Phone call 'urged attack on planes'

An intercepted telephone call from Pakistan to Britain played a crucial role in foiling alleged attacks on US-bound aeroplanes, Pakistani officials have revealed.

The telephone call allegedly urged plotters to go ahead with attacks

The arrest in Pakistan of a key suspect with alleged al Qaida links, British national Rashid Rauf, prompted an unidentified associate of his to make the call from Karachi to one of the suspects subsequently arrested in Britain, the officials said.

"This telephone call intercept in Karachi and the arrest of Rashid Rauf helped a lot to foil the terror plan," a senior Pakistani security official said.

It wasn't clear exactly when the call was intercepted, but officials have said Rauf - one of at least two Britons of Pakistani descent arrested in Pakistan - was held about a week before the plot was foiled in Britain on Thursday.

A British security agency's informer in Pakistan with contacts with Rauf provided a tip that helped Pakistan arrest him, a Pakistani intelligence official said.

A US official disclosed that after the first arrests in Pakistan, word went from Pakistan to the London plotters to move ahead quickly, a message intercepted by an intelligence agency. That prompted British police to move in on the conspirators, long under watch.

The plotters allegedly planned to blow up as many as 10 planes flying to the US from Britain. Pakistan says it played an "important role" in breaking the conspiracy in co-operation with British and US agents.

Pakistan's government has confirmed the arrests of seven suspects, and intelligence officials say 10 other people were detained on Friday and were being questioned on Saturday to determine their links to the alleged plot and where they had received financial support or any training.

An intelligence official familiar with the investigation confirmed the communication intercept, and said British agents had been monitoring the activities of Rauf's family since December. The official said one of the suspects caught in Britain and named by British authorities, Tayib Rauf, is a close relative of Rashid Rauf.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1952118.html

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You just can't imagine that there are things I might tell you which secret foreign agents might be able to use to hurt America, can you?

If you possess such knowledge, should you even be alluding to it in a public forum?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Well, how about this?

I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Nobody says phone taps should be universally illegal.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

If you possess such knowledge, should you even be alluding to it in a public forum?

Sorry, I can neither confirm not deny I have knowledge.

[jckalen]

Sorry, I can neither confirm not deny I have knowledge.

I think a lot of us can guess the answer to that one.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Weak. You come out with this really strong claim, and then people tell you to back up your bluster, and you're like, "Uh, well, you'll just have to believe me."

He's just trolling.



V

[jckalen]

Omg!!! A Ufo!!!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by jckalen

Omg!!! A Ufo!!!

They're just one of those things that the government shields us from knowing about. We don't need to know. It would cause so much panic to know that ETs exist.

How could we handle that? We'd probably try to invade them, if they didn't just pre-empt us

V