Six Lessons from the London Airline Bombing Plot

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What we now know about the London-based plot to destroy ten civilian airplanes points to six conclusions.

First, what stopped this plot was law enforcement. Law enforcement. Not a military invasion of Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, or Iraq. Old-fashioned surveillance, development of human sources, putting pieces together, and cooperation with foreign police and intelligence services.

Second, the conspiracy — if it resembles the London bombings of last summer — will likely be home-grown, another of the growing jihad "fashion" in Europe that comprises the new street gangs of this world. It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return. Under different cirucmstances, it could be Tamils or Red Brigades or Michigan Militiamen, and has been.

Third, if al Qaeda was involved (allegedly from Pakistan), we can thank the failure of the war in Afghanistan and the cozying up to Musharraf to destroy them.

Fourth, there was no involvement by any American-based “cells,” according the FBI Director Robert Mueller. As many of us have been saying for nearly five years, and as the 9/11 Commission Report showed, there is virtually no plausible American jihad organization at work, and never has been.

Fifth, the plot again reveals how ill-equipped the U.S. Government has been in anticipating plausible attack scenarios and taking steps to prevent them. Liquid bombs were so hard to figure out? Al Qaeda already tried it. DHS has almost completely missed the threat, just as they are missing the vulnerability of cargo holds and God knows what else. Thomas Kean, the former GOP governor and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, called this liquid bomb error “appalling” and wondered, on an NBC program four months ago, why no progress had been made. What are the tens of billions being spent on? This is Katrina II.

Sixth, and most important, we must end our involvement in Iraq and sharply refocus our presence in the region. The war president’s approach is not working. It’s a diversion from the real threat. It’s a spur to bitter revenge. It’s a big feedback loop that will endanger us for years, if not decades. Our lives are now at stake because the Bush catastrophe has created thousands of new terrorists.

Naturally, the politically expedient are trying to gain an edge. Defeated Senator Joseph Lieberman immediately attacked his victorious primary challenger Ned Lamont, saying that Lamont’s leave Iraq policy is somehow connected to this. It’s the opposite — the war distracts and inflames. We will see the crowing from the Bushies now, when in fact they were again asleep at the wheel, only this time the Brits saved the day. The war v. law enforcement contrast — remember how John Kerry was ridiculed by Cheney for suggesting that aggressive police work and human intelligence were anti-terror linchpins? — is now buried by conflating the “war against terror” in Iraq with this Scotland Yard and MI5 success.

Reversing America’s colossally destructive series of interventions in the Middle East — a cause, a trigger, a recruitment fountain, and a charity for jihad — will require an entirely different mindset, not just an adjustment or a measured retreat. When America responded, after being prodded, to the tsunami victims in Indonesia early last year, it profoundly changed Indonesians’ views of the United States. New attitudes of support and cooperation suddenly sprang forth. This “natural experiment” should be examined to learn from, possibly to emulate, in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.

We’re now viewed as destroyers, and destruction is the retort. This is the “new Middle East” that is aborning — one of relentless violence — if we do not end our own relentless violence there. The would-be bombers in London are a reminder of how close it is.

John Tirman is Executive Director of MIT's Center for International Studies. His most recent book is 100 Ways America Is Screwing Up the World (Harper Perennial, 2006).

Edited August 14, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

What we now know about the London-based plot to destroy ten civilian airplanes points to six conclusions.

First, what stopped this plot was law enforcement. Law enforcement. Not a military invasion of Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, or Iraq. Old-fashioned surveillance, development of human sources, putting pieces together, and cooperation with foreign police and intelligence services.

yes, and given how overworked the police are to begin with, i'm still not feeling safe when we rely on just "law enforcement" and neither should you.

Second, the conspiracy — if it resembles the London bombings of last summer — will likely be home-grown, another of the growing jihad "fashion" in Europe that comprises the new street gangs of this world. It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return. Under different cirucmstances, it could be Tamils or Red Brigades or Michigan Militiamen, and has been.

but once again, it was not - as usual. i'm just waiting for people to realize that hey, there does seem to be a pattern to these bombings and attempted bombings.

Third, if al Qaeda was involved (allegedly from Pakistan), we can thank the failure of the war in Afghanistan and the cozying up to Musharraf to destroy them.

Fourth, there was no involvement by any American-based “cells,” according the FBI Director Robert Mueller. As many of us have been saying for nearly five years, and as the 9/11 Commission Report showed, there is virtually no plausible American jihad organization at work, and never has been.

they all moved to canada

Fifth, the plot again reveals how ill-equipped the U.S. Government has been in anticipating plausible attack scenarios and taking steps to prevent them. Liquid bombs were so hard to figure out? Al Qaeda already tried it. DHS has almost completely missed the threat, just as they are missing the vulnerability of cargo holds and God knows what else. Thomas Kean, the former GOP governor and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, called this liquid bomb error “appalling” and wondered, on an NBC program four months ago, why no progress had been made. What are the tens of billions being spent on? This is Katrina II.

build a better rattrap, someone comes up with a better rat.....

the terrorists will keep trying, we'll keep catching them, but some will get thru.

Sixth, and most important, we must end our involvement in Iraq and sharply refocus our presence in the region. The war president’s approach is not working. It’s a diversion from the real threat. It’s a spur to bitter revenge. It’s a big feedback loop that will endanger us for years, if not decades. Our lives are now at stake because the Bush catastrophe has created thousands of new terrorists.

Naturally, the politically expedient are trying to gain an edge. Defeated Senator Joseph Lieberman immediately attacked his victorious primary challenger Ned Lamont, saying that Lamont’s leave Iraq policy is somehow connected to this. It’s the opposite — the war distracts and inflames. We will see the crowing from the Bushies now, when in fact they were again asleep at the wheel, only this time the Brits saved the day. The war v. law enforcement contrast — remember how John Kerry was ridiculed by Cheney for suggesting that aggressive police work and human intelligence were anti-terror linchpins? — is now buried by conflating the “war against terror” in Iraq with this Scotland Yard and MI5 success.

why did i just know something like this would be in here?

Reversing America’s colossally destructive series of interventions in the Middle East — a cause, a trigger, a recruitment fountain, and a charity for jihad — will require an entirely different mindset, not just an adjustment or a measured retreat. When America responded, after being prodded, to the tsunami victims in Indonesia early last year, it profoundly changed Indonesians’ views of the United States. New attitudes of support and cooperation suddenly sprang forth. This “natural experiment” should be examined to learn from, possibly to emulate, in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.

oh yes, we should go back to pre 9-11. buying oil and doing nothing till the next airplanes crash into buildings.

We’re now viewed as destroyers, and destruction is the retort. This is the “new Middle East” that is aborning — one of relentless violence — if we do not end our own relentless violence there. The would-be bombers in London are a reminder of how close it is.

the united states has rarely had a favorable review from the world. jealousy, pettiness, politics, one upmanship all because the usa is the most visible nation and therefore the most hated. your thoughts, steve?

[Mirorgate 0]

Quick breakdown of story: Rep = BAD, Dem = GOOD.

it's a bit more than that.. regarldess of what the print says. The issue with mil intelligence (yes they have some ) is that it always "top secret" and cant be shared.. so its not. stupid protocols and procesures that block the process that should be in place.

yes it was police work and cooperation that broke the news... abotu 3 months ago or something accordin to some of the news reports. and after 9/11 too they realised that they needed more personable way to get information... and not rely on electronic means (looks good in movies... jack in reality), and they went thru a hiring frenzy for a time (CIA, FBI, maybe NSA.. but too "secretive" to be much help except to themselves.)

everyone is so eager to point fingers at ppl that are diametrically apposed to thier world views that it detracts from the obvious. there are a bunch of #######-heads running around thinking its ok to kill innocent ppl by any means available to "make the world know of our cause" as if the news reporting channels blasting it over the airwaves, printing it in paper, online in electric form doesnt do that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

the united states has rarely had a favorable review from the world. jealousy, pettiness, politics, one upmanship all because the usa is the most visible nation and therefore the most hated. your thoughts, steve?

I was talking with my Dad on the phone last night about the world view of the U.S.. He said that right after WW2, the U.S. was revered by the rest of the world as the greatest country - the country that stood up against the clear agressors and defeated them decisively. Then the Marshal Plan took shape as the positive view of the U.S. continued. But during the 60's and with our involvement in Vietnam, as well as revelations of plots of assasinations by the CIA, the rest of the world saw a different U.S.. The line between agressor and defender became blurred. We've got to somehow restore the rest of the world's confidence that we are defenders of freedom and not agressors of opportunity.

[incanada1234 0]

Steven, I feel sorry for you because I know you're sitting there eagerly agreeing with everything that idiot wrote.

It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return.

Wow, John Tirman, Executive Director of MIT's Center for International Studies, is living in his own little world isn't he. I'm glad he set me straight though. For a minute there I thought muslims hated jews. I see now though that they loved and embraced them. Up until, you know, we started bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. That's when they REALLY started turning on the Jews, boy. But up until then, things were rosy.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven, I feel sorry for you because I know you're sitting there eagerly agreeing with everything that idiot wrote.

It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return.

Wow, John Tirman, Executive Director of MIT's Center for International Studies, is living in his own little world isn't he. I'm glad he set me straight though. For a minute there I thought muslims hated jews. I see now though that they loved and embraced them. Up until, you know, we started bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. That's when they REALLY started turning on the Jews, boy. But up until then, things were rosy.

Second, the conspiracy — if it resembles the London bombings of last summer — will likely be home-grown, another of the growing jihad "fashion" in Europe that comprises the new street gangs of this world. It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return. Under different cirucmstances, it could be Tamils or Red Brigades or Michigan Militiamen, and has been.

I think you missed his point on that one.

Edited August 14, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Most interesting article. Thank you, Stephen, for posting this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the united states has rarely had a favorable review from the world. jealousy, pettiness, politics, one upmanship all because the usa is the most visible nation and therefore the most hated. your thoughts, steve?

I was talking with my Dad on the phone last night about the world view of the U.S.. He said that right after WW2, the U.S. was revered by the rest of the world as the greatest country - the country that stood up against the clear agressors and defeated them decisively. Then the Marshal Plan took shape as the positive view of the U.S. continued. But during the 60's and with our involvement in Vietnam, as well as revelations of plots of assasinations by the CIA, the rest of the world saw a different U.S.. The line between agressor and defender became blurred. We've got to somehow restore the rest of the world's confidence that we are defenders of freedom and not agressors of opportunity.

America is an imperial power - just as most of the European countries were 2-3 hundred years ago. Having had experience of European Imperialism (which is ultimate root cause for almost every civil war and ethnic cleansing campaign), 3rd world nations have little reason to trust America, which has shown itself as being little different in that regard.

Yet for some reason people here assume that people living in those countries have the luxury of a short memory and wonder why we're having such a difficult time trying to win hearts and minds of Iraqis and Afghans. Trust isn't free, after all.

Edited August 14, 2006 by erekose

[ChristinaM 0]

What we now know about the London-based plot to destroy ten civilian airplanes points to six conclusions.

First, what stopped this plot was law enforcement. Law enforcement. Not a military invasion of Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, or Iraq. Old-fashioned surveillance, development of human sources, putting pieces together, and cooperation with foreign police and intelligence services.

yes, and given how overworked the police are to begin with, i'm still not feeling safe when we rely on just "law enforcement" and neither should you.

If the police are so overworked, then why don't we hire some more. More people = more work beeing done, right? And since they're part of the key to preventing terrorism, why don't we use some of the budget that's currently funding a war supposedly being fought for the sake of terrorism.

D'oh; I forgot. Terrorism isn't the excuse for the war this week. This week it's for the sake of liberating the people.

build a better rattrap, someone comes up with a better rat.....

the terrorists will keep trying, we'll keep catching them, but some will get thru.

And that's why having feet on the street, so to speak, is a far more effective use of anti-terror resources than being at war with Iraq. We need to find out about those better rat-traps before they are sprung, not after.

the united states has rarely had a favorable review from the world. jealousy, pettiness, politics, one upmanship all because the usa is the most visible nation and therefore the most hated. your thoughts, steve?

I might not be Steve, but I'm going to give you my thoughts anyway. What you just said is complete and utter BS.

Why does the US not have a favourable review from the world? For one, because of comments like the one that you just made. "Jealousy, pettiness, one-upmanship". The arrogance of that statement is absolutely astounding. To say that is like a small child in the playground saying "my dad can beat up your dad". The US is NOT the only place in the world where it is desirable to live, and not everybody wants to live the way that we do here.

For two, the US is absolutely incapable of keeping it's fingers out of everybody else's pie. The United States of America. Not the United States of the World. America is not responsible for policing the moral conduct of the world and spreading democracy to countries which have existed for much longer than the US itself has. People really resent that the US feels it has the God-given right to do that. I as a Brit really resent it.

The US is the most visible country in the world because it chooses to be. By choosing not to work with the UN over Iraq, by choosing to opt out of Kyoto, by choosing to allow a president to effectively eliminate the checks and balances which kept it's people safe, by choosing to make itself a target by its attitudes and behaviours. The same reasons it makes itself visible are the same reasons for which it is disliked. Visible does not necessarily translate to hated. In the case of the US, you have done it to yourselves.

I understand that you are ex-military, which must colour your opinions to a certain extent. But Don't bring that "I'm American, I'm entitled" mentality to this debate. THAT is pettiness.

JMHO.

Edited for REALLY poopy quoting

Edited August 14, 2006 by ChristinaM

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

If the police are so overworked, then why don't we hire some more. More people = more work beeing done, right? And since they're part of the key to preventing terrorism, why don't we use some of the budget that's currently funding a war supposedly being fought for the sake of terrorism.

D'oh; I forgot. Terrorism isn't the excuse for the war this week. This week it's for the sake of liberating the people.

And that's why having feet on the street, so to speak, is a far more effective use of anti-terror resources than being at war with Iraq. We need to find out about those better rat-traps before they are sprung, not after.

I might not be Steve, but I'm going to give you my thoughts anyway. What you just said is complete and utter BS.

Why does the US not have a favourable review from the world? For one, because of comments like the one that you just made. "Jealousy, pettiness, one-upmanship". The arrogance of that statement is absolutely astounding. To say that is like a small child in the playground saying "my dad can beat up your dad". The US is NOT the only place in the world where it is desirable to live, and not everybody wants to live the way that we do here.

For two, the US is absolutely incapable of keeping it's fingers out of everybody else's pie. The United States of America. Not the United States of the World. America is not responsible for policing the moral conduct of the world and spreading democracy to countries which have existed for much longer than the US itself has. People really resent that the US feels it has the God-given right to do that. I as a Brit really resent it.

The US is the most visible country in the world because it chooses to be. By choosing not to work with the UN over Iraq, by choosing to opt out of Kyoto, by choosing to allow a president to effectively eliminate the checks and balances which kept it's people safe, by choosing to make itself a target by its attitudes and behaviours. The same reasons it makes itself visible are the same reasons for which it is disliked. Visible does not necessarily translate to hated. In the case of the US, you have done it to yourselves.

I understand that you are ex-military, which must colour your opinions to a certain extent. But Don't bring that "I'm American, I'm entitled" mentality to this debate. THAT is pettiness.

JMHO.

Edited for REALLY poopy quoting

well that was interesting reading due to the quotes being messed up. you can think it's bs all you want, it's my opinion.

sure, hire more police. and along with that higher taxes. you able to pay for that? wars are fought with national tax dollars, local law enforcement is by taxing the local populace. as far as more people = more work being done, our government is an excellent case in point on that. i don't feel more is being done although more and more work for the government.

ok, so let's leave all countries alone and oppressed. happy with that answer? petty dictator? don't call us. ethnic cleansing? sorry, we're busy. nuclear proliferation? don't have the time for it.

more feet on the street does not equate to success. 9-11 still happened, despite having nsa, the cia, fbi, and various state and local police departments. no matter how much manpower we have, a determined enough adversary will still get thru. an analogy - just look at kamikazes in ww2, going after a battleship which had the most defenses of anything afloat. many failed, some still got thru.

as far as my statement about most countries being jealous of the usa, yes, i feel that is true. how many people in say outter mongolia can point at a map and say there is the usa. but most americans can't find their country? geography shortcoming on our part? perhaps, perhaps not. or just maybe that country isn't even on the radar screen and is never noticed. and if you feel so strongly about keeping your fingers out of others pie, give the falkland islands back to argentina.

no i don't believe the usa should go spread democracy about like it's christmas time and uncle sam is playing saint nick. a country, if ready for that, moves towards such on its own. yes, the usa should keep it's hands out of other countries and let them deal with their own problems. like when hitler came to power. like bosnia. like iraq. like haiti. like panama. grenada. korea. vietnam. somalia. etc.

"a president to effectively eliminate the checks and balances which kept it's people safe" do i really need to point out that if he was doing so wrong he could be impeached? the checks and balances are still there. i have the distinct feeling the above was just a general rant towards america, and no, i'm not taking it personally.

"But Don't bring that "I'm American, I'm entitled" mentality to this debate. THAT is pettiness." where did i say that?

[ChristinaM 0]

well that was interesting reading due to the quotes being messed up. you can think it's bs all you want, it's my opinion.

I did go back and correct the quotes - I'm pretty lousy at quoting with names and fancy stuff like that It is your opinion, and as I made plain in my post, that was nothing more than my opinion.

sure, hire more police. and along with that higher taxes. you able to pay for that? wars are fought with national tax dollars, local law enforcement is by taxing the local populace.

Of all the things that my taxes go to pay for, police is one thing I would be willing to pay for. As is education, but that's a whole different argument. Am I able to afford more taxes? Not really, but I'd make it through. We pay federal tax as well as state tax, so I am assuming that my tax dollars are funding the war in Iraq right now. Why can some of that money not be diverted? After all; we've won the war on terror - the government said so at least a couple of years ago. The CIA and FBI are national agencies; why is it so impossible to conceive that a national branch of police could be set up with the specific aim of being the feet on the street for terror investigations?

as far as more people = more work being done, our government is an excellent case in point on that. i don't feel more is being done although more and more work for the government.

I said more people, not more bureaucrats. There is a distinct difference. Maybe something that would help would be working for government (national, state or local level) not being seen as a "soft option". And it it a soft option - if I behaved the way that some state and local employees do here in Maine, I wouldn't have a job at the end of the week. Much less one with more paid holidays than practically anyone else in the state.

ok, so let's leave all countries alone and oppressed. happy with that answer? petty dictator? don't call us. ethnic cleansing? sorry, we're busy. nuclear proliferation? don't have the time for it.

You know, I'm happier with that answer than I am with the current situation. I don't think you're appreciating the difference between being asked to participate and simply barging in there and doing it anyway. There's also a certain element of diplomacy which the US has not yet mastered, and "might makes right" is not always the best solution. As far as nuclear proliferation, what gives the US the automatic right to have WMD but not the "bad" guys? Don't forget that to somebody else, the US is the bad guy. I think Steven brought up a very good point that the US is no longer being seen as the defender, but the aggressor. That cannot be a good thing.

more feet on the street does not equate to success. 9-11 still happened, despite having nsa, the cia, fbi, and various state and local police departments. no matter how much manpower we have, a determined enough adversary will still get thru. an analogy - just look at kamikazes in ww2, going after a battleship which had the most defenses of anything afloat. many failed, some still got thru.

With the best will in the world and all the people in the world, you cannot guarantee success. But by the same token, when there is a controversial sporting event on you don't see the local police send three men. They send whole riot teams because they know that the more people they have out there, the better the chance of preventing the riot.

as far as my statement about most countries being jealous of the usa, yes, i feel that is true. how many people in say outter mongolia can point at a map and say there is the usa. but most americans can't find their country? geography shortcoming on our part? perhaps, perhaps not. or just maybe that country isn't even on the radar screen and is never noticed.

I feel that that opinion is one of the main reasons that the US is becoming not just disliked by the international community, but abhored. The US is notoriously insular and self-concerned. Just one example; when I listen to NPR in the morning, I hear reports on the Dow and the NYSE, and I know what the US$ is doing against the CAN$. When I used to listen to Radio 4 in the morning, I used to hear how all the major markets were doing, and I used to know the exchange rates of the pound against the dollar and the euro.

I have an appointment at 4o'clock with a customer for which I am now going to be late, so I'm going to have to leave this for now. I assure you that I will be back, and you're right - it's not personal. You just hit on something which pizzes me off.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

I did go back and correct the quotes - I'm pretty lousy at quoting with names and fancy stuff like that It is your opinion, and as I made plain in my post, that was nothing more than my opinion.

it's ok with the quotes, i've had major fights with them before and not won very often

Of all the things that my taxes go to pay for, police is one thing I would be willing to pay for. As is education, but that's a whole different argument. Am I able to afford more taxes? Not really, but I'd make it through. We pay federal tax as well as state tax, so I am assuming that my tax dollars are funding the war in Iraq right now. Why can some of that money not be diverted? After all; we've won the war on terror - the government said so at least a couple of years ago. The CIA and FBI are national agencies; why is it so impossible to conceive that a national branch of police could be set up with the specific aim of being the feet on the street for terror investigations?

yet the police cannot protect you. you can pay for them all you want, just don't expect them to show up very fast. out where i live the average response time is about 30 minutes. as for diverting federal tax money, we've seen how well that works - that multi-million dollar bridge to 50 people in alaska, remember that one? would have been cheaper to give each one of them like 4 million dollars apiece. and what exactly would the national branch of police do? same thing as the fbi? that is in their charter ya know.

I said more people, not more bureaucrats. There is a distinct difference. Maybe something that would help would be working for government (national, state or local level) not being seen as a "soft option". And it it a soft option - if I behaved the way that some state and local employees do here in Maine, I wouldn't have a job at the end of the week. Much less one with more paid holidays than practically anyone else in the state.

yes, you said more people, but along with that comes multiple layers of bureacracy. supervisors, etc. too many chiefs and not enough indians would be the probable result. yes i'm a cynic about government organization skills.

You know, I'm happier with that answer than I am with the current situation. I don't think you're appreciating the difference between being asked to participate and simply barging in there and doing it anyway. There's also a certain element of diplomacy which the US has not yet mastered, and "might makes right" is not always the best solution. As far as nuclear proliferation, what gives the US the automatic right to have WMD but not the "bad" guys? Don't forget that to somebody else, the US is the bad guy. I think Steven brought up a very good point that the US is no longer being seen as the defender, but the aggressor. That cannot be a good thing.

you might have been happier with that statement i made, but isolationism and sticking our head in the sand darn near did us in at the start of ww1 and ww2. it might be easier at first to placate an organization intent on the destruction of our country, but in the long run the cost will be higher. just imagine what would have happened if the usa had jumped all over hitler at the start instead of letting him control most of europe before we got involved.

in regards to diplomacy, all you have to do is look at how many resolutions were passed against saddam over 12 years, and he failed to comply. if the un wants to be something other than a laughingstock, there needs to be teeth behind the bark. and saddam was betting on that for a long time.

on wmd (specifically nuclear) there are international treaties preventing the proliferation of such. and the us is not the only member of that crowd. do you really think it would be a safer world if every nutcase dictator had nukes?

With the best will in the world and all the people in the world, you cannot guarantee success. But by the same token, when there is a controversial sporting event on you don't see the local police send three men. They send whole riot teams because they know that the more people they have out there, the better the chance of preventing the riot.

better chance how? if they are gonna riot they will riot. all they can hope to do is deter people by their presence. i don't see how that could be connected to someone coming into the usa intent on bombing us somehow. a cop on every corner won't stop him or her unless they do something against the law.

I feel that that opinion is one of the main reasons that the US is becoming not just disliked by the international community, but abhored. The US is notoriously insular and self-concerned. Just one example; when I listen to NPR in the morning, I hear reports on the Dow and the NYSE, and I know what the US$ is doing against the CAN$. When I used to listen to Radio 4 in the morning, I used to hear how all the major markets were doing, and I used to know the exchange rates of the pound against the dollar and the euro.

one thing the oil for food program taught me is that those that are the most critical of what the usa were doing were the same ones lining their pockets via that deal. it's all nice and wonderful to be concerned about human rights and so on, but when a high powered group is enriching themselves via the status quo and they get annoyed because the usa upsets their apple cart, that's too bad for them. germany and france were all over the usa about us going into iraq. and later on it turns out those same two countries were doing quite nice with the oil for food program. makes you wonder why they screamed so loud

I have an appointment at 4o'clock with a customer for which I am now going to be late, so I'm going to have to leave this for now. I assure you that I will be back, and you're right - it's not personal. You just hit on something which pizzes me off.

i'll be around. in the meantime i'm sure erekose will take up where you left off

[Risto 0]

What we now know about the London-based plot to destroy ten civilian airplanes points to six conclusions.

First, what stopped this plot was law enforcement. Law enforcement. Not a military invasion of Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, or Iraq. Old-fashioned surveillance, development of human sources, putting pieces together, and cooperation with foreign police and intelligence services.

Second, the conspiracy — if it resembles the London bombings of last summer — will likely be home-grown, another of the growing jihad "fashion" in Europe that comprises the new street gangs of this world. It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism.

Well it is

[iceyspots 0]