OK, The DU Disconnect.

Props to DUer Generator for raising this in another thread.

Work with me here.

We spend all this time saying that the invasion of Iraq, as well as the situation in Lebanon, will serve to generate more terrorists who want to harm us.

But when we hear of a terrorist plot to harm us, so many here immediately doubt it could be true.

So...we are creating more terrorists with our messed-up foreign policy...but simultaneously we refuse to believe those newly-created terrorists want to harm us? Are these newly-created terrorists sitting around playing cribbage or something?

F. Scott Fitzgerald defined an artist as someone who can hold two fundamentally opposing ideas in their head at the same time. That may be true of artists, but it doesn't quite hold water for observers of the world.

Thoughts?

Just a bit too coincidental, dontcha think?

Too bad, but a noble try, and an object lesson for those librul voter in CT.

Either it's to distract us from something that's going on (isn't there always something going on?) or it's because it's been slow and they need to keep the news cycle going. No, that can not always be the answer. That argument is illogical on so many levels.

Too many "it's." Can you pin it down a little more specifically?

Cher

I mean that whenever there's info on a terrorist plot or activity or the alert level gets raised, the automatic response for many on this board is "look at the timing! It's just a hoax by the Bush administration!" That is said when there's nothing going on and therefore the administration has to keep "terror" in the news. That's also said when there's a primary or a criminal investigation or a grand jury meets or other anything else happens. It's a knee-jerk reaction and it's starting to wear thin. It can't possibly be the answer all the time, no matter what else is or isn't in the news.

Does this administration use it to their advantage? Of course. Are they dishonest in their responses? Absolutely. Are they failures on all aspects of national security? Definitely! But, to dismiss any and all reports of terrorist activity as Bush BS is absurd. And getting old.

And, I'll go one step further and add that I think it shows that a lot of DU'ers are scared of the reality. They don't want to admit that their next plane trip could end in disaster - it's a lot easier to blow it off and chalk it up to a Rovian strategy. It's easier to sleep at night that way but it's a delusional state to live in.

Seriously, this is not a special time. Iraq has been going wrong for years; and Lebanon for weeks, though the Bush regime doesn't seem to see a problem with that. There is an obsession at DU with the Lamont/Lieberman result that shows a worrying disconnect from the reality of both the USA and the world, so I hope to god you're not talking about that; but that too, like Lebanon, is not a problem for news stories as far as the Bush regime is concerned. So what timing do you think is coincidental? Reid's speech yestday about terrorism? Perhaps, but it's just as possible that he knew the raids would happen soon, so decided to make the speech. That's just taking a bit of political advantage.

I will never forget it as long as I live. Spent the evening listening to great campaign speeches and saw Kerry nominated. Went to bed feeling like a proud Dem. Then I woke up the next morning to discover that TERROR was all over the news. NO ONE was talking about Kerry, his nomination or his speech, but TERRORISTS were going to attack financial centers, especially Wall Street in New York. FEAR FEAR FEAR.

Then about a month later we find out that the bush administration had known about those terror threats for TWO YEARS!

Then who can forget the almost immediate swift boat attacks that set in right after that? Then Osama! Out of the blue! Right before the election. And Cheney spread the message that if Kerry was elected, TERRORISTS would attack again.

And surely you are aware of the Friday news dumps?

You bet I don't trust these mother fuckers and I will suspect their timing evey single time they try to tell me I am in danger. You are right, this is not a special time. The evil leaders of our country sure want us to think it is though. Can't gloat about Lamont's victory anymore, gotta talk about TERROR now.

:mad:

Get some perspective. One piece of political news, that had happened the day before, and was already at the stage of discussion only by those interested in politics, and you think the British police, already heavily criticised for getting intelligence wrong, are going to put their jobs on the line just because some two bit Republican political consultant thinks he'd like a different talking point for the political columns and blogs? That they'd make up evidence, risking jail time, or getting sacked for getting an arrest wrong, and throw British airports into total confusion, getting literally hundreds of flights cancelled, for the sake of which headline appears in the Hartford Courant the next day?

Can't you possibly think of something else happening in the world that could make an alternative headline? Say, something happening in the Middle East?

I'll say it again - the idea that these arrests were triggered by the desire to displace Lamont from headlines is the second funniest thing I've heard today. It's also slightly sad, at the same time, to see good DUers so tied up in the internal politics of the Democratic party that they've forgotten how the rest of the world works.

either.

18 months ago, you couldn't talk about election fraud here. It is still a touchy subject but if you scan these threads, you can sure gather that 'they stole 2 elections' is widely accepted here at DU.

And how many Americans now believe we have been lied to about 9/11?

So no, I don't trust ANYTHING our media and our 'leaders' (and I use that term loosely) tell us.

Why would British police risk jail and/or their jobs for a minor American political talking point?

I am sure the FBI agents who arrested those 7 kids in Florida also believed they were terraists. And the govt agents who spied on the Quakers believed they were protecting their country.

I also don't believe the British police had any control over when this story was given to the media.

so they police did have control. Yes, a minor talking point - Lamont is not a world-shaking story. It had its day of headlines; if he gets in, it will have it again. The terrorism story has just changed what American political pundits will write columns about for the next day or two.

as commented on by the BBC news report, more evidence for your point that brits had little control over how the media side of this was handled.

they failed to stop the plot last July in the UK and killed an innocent man, lied brazenly about it and absolved every one of that crime recently. They risk nothing--that's proven. So retire that flimsy argument. This has to do with a wider campaign to win in 2006. Questioning this upsets the frame in response to this of certain Dem politicos of repeating their losing 2004 strategy of trying to out fear the Repub fear apparatus. Instead, break out of this losing box and question their already obvious use of this to rehabilitate Bush, Chertoff, Gonzalez and prove they are more than incompetent.

Connecting it to the Lamont election is insane on the left until you realize that on the right, Cheney said it would embolden the terrorists, or something along those lines. So really it is the right with the tinfoil hats.

As always MV, you make a good point. I was wondering if the PCTs could name a day, just one, when an announcement of a broken terror plot (real or no) could not be labeled as a "distraction." There is ALWAYS something going on in the news that will get bumped off of the front page.

Two days ago the media hot topic was Israel's invasion of Lebanon, and more or less only that. Today it is terror, terror and utter terror, and only that.
The intnl. pressure is off Israel now, no matter how we look at this.

If it was a workable plot that was about to go into action, sure, but otherwise this could turn into another incidence of crying wolf to further restrict and repress the American public.

The actions in Iraq and Lebanon won't create more terrorists, according to them, and the war on terror is effective and we are winning.

So why this thwarted attack today?

Why are will still at risk?

I take these stings seriously.

corporate run media use it to keep everyone under their thumbs that has me bothered.

you can't trust the information that you're given anymore. You can't trust the motives behind the information. Whether it's real or it isn't they will try to use it to advance their own agenda. After the hysterical ranting that went on yesterday and even into today, the reckless language that was being used, it has me bothered as well.

It's when Chartoff, Gonzalez and their cheerleaders in the media use it to justify their existence it's so sleazy they make it sound like bullshit.

No doubt terrorists have been exposed here, but we've also seen how the criminal masterminds in our own government exploit these incidents as an opportunity to further their own agenda. There isn't a traitorous neocon among us who isn't privately celebrating these events...smirking, rubbing their hands, toasting themselves. They're desperate to regain control.

How I see this and other FEAR topics, handled.

DemEx

that the terrorists are plying the Bush Administration but then when they actually do something it is convenient for Bush, meaning Bush is playing them.

I mean we'll wait for more info after all because the last time there was a huge terrorist scare in the UK they shot an innocent man to death in broad daylight... but yes, it's more than possible.

IMO, it is the management of the information that is suspicious. Clinton thwarted how many terrorist attacks? And now even the incompetent GOPranos in charge here have thwarted how many more? And in the UK? What I'm getting at is that it seems to me there's no need to shred the Bill of Rights or the Constitution to make us more safe.

So it's not so much that I automatically reject out of hand the idea that these suspects were plotting, it is also not that I don't think there are any number of terrorists plotting all sorts of things, it's simply that the way they release information, and the reasons WHY they release it in the way they do, are much more important to me now than doing *anything* to encourage *anyone* to hop on the "please, take our rights away, mister, we're SCAAAAAAARED!" bandwagon.

it's just a restatement of Keats' negative capability.

(I know that's not really what you were asking for comment on ....:) carry on)

We aren't running anymore.

I don't believe a thing the cabal announces. When the media obediently hypes terra nonstop, it's another indication that the topic is BS.

One, I think there are those who are pefectly capable of jinning up threats in order to keep us scared (and, e.g., if they think a Lieberman loss is a threat to our security, now is the time to scare everyone) - but two, I also believe that terrorism threats are and always have been real. I don't know if this fits into the administration's plans but I think this administration is peopled with the type who are so politically minded that they relish the notion of a confused populace grasping for anything to keep them more safe, to the exclusion of all else.

I'm flying to Boston tonight and I don't feel very happy about it. And I had really been looking forward to this trip.

I think what's going on here today, is a result of Bush fatigue, and the administration crying wolf for almost 5 years.

If there was a real plot, and I think the jury is still out on that, I'm grateful that the British found out about it and stopped it. But, as I say, they've been crying wolf and manipulating terror alerts since 9/11, so I think a little skepticism is in order.

of our own creation - as in people who hate the US policies that much.

Or it could be terrorists of Rumsfeld/Cheney's, etc. creation - people paid to make it look like we are more vulnerable than we are.


I could go with either one. I don't presume to know. Either scenario is as deadly as the other.

I knew when I heard about this that many on DU would dismiss it as BS. There is a cognitive dissonance here sometimes that I find very frustrating.

I felt a little frustrated earlier today, but am very pleased to read many posts/responses pointing out the flaws in logic r/t the "terrorist" argument.

that does not mean that the plot wasn't real.

the Bush administation are skillfull at milking these sorts of crisis for political gain; rather than skillfull at manipulating world events for the purpose of political messaging.

I'm sorry: I don't believe that the British Government shut down one of the busiest airports in the world during the height of the tourist season just to get change the Joementum-loses-primary story. Joe Lieberman has never been that friendly to Britain, or the British government: I just don't see Her Majesty's Government getting that excised about his defeat.

that bush is a failed commander in chief. As tom oliphant said this afternoon on Franken, Al-Quaeda should be dead and buried by now and would be if bush didn't have to be a war president.

On the flip side, conservatives view more terrorist activity as evidence that they are right to support a war against a country which had nothing to do with September 11th. Bizarro worlds in strange juxtaposition brought to us by the total incompetence of the republican party.

Something like that.

See we are at war because we continue to be attacked... SEE?!?!?!

BTW- as of December 14 we will have been in the War in Iraq longer than we were in WWII (Pearl Harbor to the Japanese unconditional surrender on the Missouri)

100% correct.

The tin foil crowd has been working overtime to deny the existence fo the people we say are being created by Bush. Totally contradictory and IMO dishonest.

:hi:

What have we done to them to make them hate us so much that they would want to blow up Americans on airplanes? Obviously, they hate our "freedom". The American people have not stopped the leadership in the White House from their torture and killing. Why should we expect the American people to be exempt from suffering also? Until we can stop the killing machine now in power, we are just as much responsible as any terrorist in the world. We deserve no less than what we have done to others. We either take control of our government or we suffer the consequences.

These are generally at least some of the same people who think the President of Iran's hatred of Israel is being misquoted.

It's too uncomfortable and scary for them to deal with.

Never mind, I believe you are.

I see a lot of hidden fear here today. It's easier to mock than deal with it.

There are burglars in the city where I live. I don't arm a militia and track them down to kill them all, I lock my door.

There's obviously an element of groupthink here at DU--and the fact that most people more or less agree with each other only increases this. So therefore, both situations you outline allow for the many DUers to demonstrate their self-perceived moral superiority over the common rabble. And sure, the conclusions drawn are pretty much diametrically opposed, but as long as one is popular and gets to scream pithy rhetoric, who cares?

In all seriousness, though, you've illuminated a problem that is hardly peculiar to the left, but is simply human--people like to feel like they are right more than they like to be consistent. It's something we point out about the freepers all the time, but rarely like to see in ourselves.

Group One are the real ones who, for whatever reason, have a grievance against 'us' and wish us harm. Group Two are our own leaders who use the threat of Group One to justify the most outrageous violations of basic human rights and the wholesale dismantling of the principles on which our system of government is based. Personally, I'm far more concerned by Group Two than Group One.

The problem with the current situation (and other terrorists scares like it) are that we are rightly suspicious of Group Two and their motives. It therefore becomes difficult to give credence to anything they say. The current plot may very well have been real and imminent, but we will never know. That's the real crime: these things directly affect our lives and we will never know the truth about them. Or we will never know that we know.

So we fall back on 'Negative Capability' (which was first coined by Keats, not Fitzgerald), the need to neither believe nor disbelieve. A superposition of possibilities is all one can entertain when the truth is so completely out of reach.

Group Two does their utmost to make Group One angry and increase their numbers. In the past Group Two have actually funded members of Group One. 36% of Americans believe that Group Two allowed or helped Group One to carry out 9/11.

Let's remember:

Jose Padilla - apparently making a dirty bomb...

Operation Swarmer - the biggest aerial assault since the beginning of the Iraq War - and what was there - nothing except fields.

Foiled Attack on "Liberty Tower"...

The Forestgate terror raid - the biggest police raid in UK history - 250 police officers to arrest two innocent men.

Miami 7 - planning a "ground war against America" - yeah right

Let's wait and see how this thing shakes out.

"The Forestgate terror raid - the biggest police raid in UK history - 250 police officers to arrest two innocent men."

Well, thats overcooking it a little.

Once of them is on charges of owning and producing child porn. He's innocent until proven guilty, but he'll be facing a jury in due course. We'll see how innocent he really is then.

that's more likely another distraction.

It's made me want to wait a week to come back to DU.

Disconnect is an understatement

The real question here isn't if it's real or not.

It's about how great a threat was it really?

How much is it being sensationalized?

Was this the most eminent threat at the moment?

While they were working on solving this how many other new terrorist were created due to our tactics?

And last but not least:

Are we really any better off today than we were yesterday?


I guess it's all about how you want to view things, but I feel this is something that could be used to kick the GOP in their rump. :shrug:

Good work by the Brits.

I don't disagree with you, I feel it was also. I don't know how great a threat it is, but it was a threat of one size or another.

What I was trying to do was point out a few other questions that might be more constructive than calling this a Rove plot and other such useless poop.

At any rate, it proves that the world still isn't safer despite all the "war on terror" that's taken place.

When you have two govts (Bush & Blair) that work hand in hand to sensationalize terrorism and have an agenda to promote a "Long War" and restriction of civil liberties you have to ask questions as to the timing, presentation and seriousness of the the threat.

Otherwise you might as well just get in line for your govt issue ID card and enrolment in the next war, because that's where they want to take you.

Rather than just reacting by saying it's all bunk, we're further ahead to analyze, question and prod the incident. Then, when all of that is done turn it back on them where it belongs.

I believe that when people (we/us/you/me/everyone) start with the premise that something is a conspiracy - literally right out of the gate - how can they be convinced of anything otherwise? How can you tell someone that they broke their ankle because they slipped on a carelessly tossed banana peel, when they are utterly convinced the peel was placed there on purpose? Prove it, right?

Stating that there was a good possibility that this was real.

I also suggested that this is a good indication that the Bush dogma of using war to solve the problem of terrorism DOES NOT WORK. Today's announcement proved it. In essence - Bush has failed Americans.

Look if Bush can use an international event for political gain - then why can't we?
Seriously - this proves that the war does not stop terrorism. That the invasion of Iraq has not lessened terrorism. That the invasion of Afghanistan has not lessened terrorism.
That the tacit approval of Israel invading Lebanon has not lessened terrorism.

Today's announcement proved you are no safer today than you were prior to Sept 11, 2001.

B*sh administrations' actions have served to increase terrorist activity. It very well could be a legitimate terror threat. But, it's like the boy who cried "wolf" too many times.

divulged thus far, consisted of each terr-ist bringing a component of a bomb onto a plane. These components would be concealed in bottles of hand lotion, iPods, laptops, coke cans and other personal carry on items.

Once on board they would all meet up to assemble and detonate the bomb, perhaps soliciting the help of willing passengers and flight attendants.

OK - the idea seems to be recycled from novels and movies but it could work - so we should be concerned. But I am willing to bet that we will never know the details. We will never be able to judge whether the threat was credible based on the facts.

We will simply have to accept the word of a group of confirmed bungling liars who can't be trusted with the keys to the rest room.

are being created somehow. It really boils down to who is oppressed and who is doing the oppressing. My money says that the more radical and rebellious of the oppressed are going to form little undergrounds to find a way to throw over their oppressors.

Terrorism against the United States has been going on for a long time, we just never heard of the "plots" that were stopped. Our foreign policy may be getting more people disliking the United States, but as for it cranking out new terrorist like some Play Dough factory, I don't believe that.

I just think we are being told of every terrorist threat now because after 9/11, they had us by the balls.

Wake up.

They put the junk in the forest that terrorize us,

With all the NSA wiretaps you'd think they would already know if there was a related plot here in the US. If there was information that US airlines were in danger don't you think that BushCo would be making arrests here too?

If nothing else, this is the first time that Bush has headed to D.C. at the first hint of trouble. Usually he has to go do a fundraiser, eat cake first before he can be bothered to be pulled away from the brush on his ranch.

we're poor little sheep
who have lost our way,
Bah, bah, bah.

and all we have to lead us is an idiot and his pals.

at least not willingly. If they tell me to be scared of something, then I won't be. It's the things they don't tell us about that we should be afraid of.

Do I believe there are "terrorists" out there? Sure, I do. But the word "terrorist" has become a catch-all term for all muslims who have a beef with the U.S. and or Israel. Do you remember Timothy McVeigh? He was no radical muslim. I don't necessarily think we are creating terrorists, so much as we are creating enemies. Anti-U.S. sentiment is on the rise, all over the world. We will never combat this with war.

The bottom line is, we must not allow ourselves to be controlled by fear or hate. We must not allow ourselves to be controlled by the media.

I do think, however, the home grown Al Qaeda in the UK, would certainly try to blow up planes heading from the UK to the US if they could, and perhaps this "easily obtained" liquid explosive concoction would work. I do not doubt that they will try and attack us again. Didn't Zawahiri say so himself recently?

are being spun in order to restrict our freedoms, scare us, and timed so that they are puked into the public conscious for politcal gain.

As Dems we should be pounding the message--and demanding that our elected officials pound the message--that we are less safe because of the foreign policy debacles of the republican party.

Osama who? Just why did the republican administration divert troops from Afghanastan where they had Osama cornered to send our military on a fool's mission in Iraq, a war that was based on lies, in a country that posed no threat to us? Why hasn't the republican congress and the republican administration followed the recommendations of the 911 report?

So far Kerry is the only one who has come out and pointed out the (should be) obvious Democratic response to all of the terror talk that has taken over the media. We should be demanding such statements from our other elected Dems.


Is it possible that the entire threat has been conjured in the sick minds of neocons to keep the western world terrorized? Sure, with these bastards anything is possible, especially when it benifits them. But we gain nothing from spending alot of time contemplating this possiblity, when the obvious winning talking points are to hammer the neocons for making us less safe.

whether genuine or not, Bushco would play it up for their own purposes and exploit it.

and the difficulty getting convictions in other terror cases, some folks have knee jerk skepticism until more info comes to light. And they are entitled to that.

2. Even if the U.S. intel on this terrorist event is dead on, the cherry-picked timing of it's release is suspect when you consider the low support the Pres. and his party are currently receiving from the public.

allowing liquids on planes without such a fuss. simple, isn't it? no need for red alert. jsut no more liquids on planes. let everyone know. really no big deal.

This is another example of how our combined foreign policy with the Brits has made us LESS safe. Only a fool could argue that fewer people in the world wish to do us harm than the number 5 years ago. And as the numbers wishing to do us harm rises, our freedoms dwindle. Neocons have a policy that will only continue that path; I choose to reverse it.

There are, I'm sure, more insurgents willing to fight against us because of our violent policies. I think the majority of them will be carried out against Americans and American interests in the middle east for a few reasons.

(1) They want to protect their home terrorities. If the French, Chinese, or the Eskimos of Greenland invaded the United States that VAST majority of us would be fighting them here to get them to leave. Only a few of us would be interested in flying overseas and detonating ourselves to take out a few non-combatant Greenlanders or Chinese.

(2) Our government has cried wolf so much that we just don't believe them anymore. We all know that the Miami Seven are harmless kooks that were entrapped. We all know that the fizzing Pepsi can in the NY subway wasn't a bomb. Their terror alerts are a cross between hysteria and political opportunism.

HOWEVER, I do think that they are probably overreacting to a thread of truth. For example, two men were in the early stages of plotting or, even discussing that they would like to carry out such an attack using Gatorade, and they intercepted them. Now the GVTs are going to be in paranoia land and we'll never be able to carry Gatorade or any other green liquid on a flight.

I agree with the poster who said that there should be a separate flight for luggage, no carryons. It's what it's going to come to anyway. This time its Gatorade. Next time it will be feminine hygiene products. After that it will be vitamins. It will never end.

I also think they might be freaked out because most terror threats are bogus opportunism, and this one has a basis in reality.

Just my dime. (inflation and all that)

Your mistake here Will is thinking that this is important.

Scotland yard nabbed some bad guys. Big Fucking Deal.

If these bad guys had had a couple of pounds of plutonium machined to weapons specs I'd be impressed.

I think many of the major discussions going on around here are completely missing the point.

Sure, there may be something to this "foiled terrorist plot." Just because they are constantly pissing on our feet and telling us it's raining doesn't mean that it can't actually rain.

But that's not the real issue here. The issue is not whether or not this plot is as full of crap as the MIAMI SEVEN. The issue is] that the Bush administration has once again teamed with our breathless chicken little corporate media to hype a "TERRA TERRA TERRA" story to kingdom come for strictly political reasons.

Scotland Yard may or may not have caught a bunch of dangerous would-be terrorists, and the timing of this may or may not have been orchestrated to the day. But there is one thing we know for sure, and that is that BushCo yelling "CODE RED! CODE RED! CODE RED!" about this already foiled plot was and is a calculated PR gambit. And our corporate media is, once again, more than happy to play Charlie Brown to BushCo's "TERRA ALERT" Lucy football.

"coverage" (if you can all it that).

UK foiled a plan involving blowing up at least 10 planes with liquid explosives on flights from UK to US. Heightened security at airports in both countries. There it is!

But, today has been an endless stream of the above with no further "news"; Bushetal seizes the opportunity to maximize it for political gain. THAT'S what I have a problem with.

here is wrong. Look at who caught them and where. First, it was Scotland Yard a law enforcement agency who foiled the plot-not effing homeland security, the military, or M-whatever and the da** patriot act did not help in the slightest. The meaning- maybe just maybe we've been right all along, military ground invasions don't work, law enforcement does.

That we have to use INTELLEGENCE to fight terrorist cells -- and they were busting anybody who questioned the insane logic that you could "end terrorism" by invasion and occupation?

IT'S TRUE THAT THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO FIGHT TERRORISM. The military strategy is a failure. It has only produced MORE terrorists to look out for.

We need to stop the madness in Iraq FOR HOMELAND SECURITY'S SAKE. We need to put those resources to work for our TRUE security. And we need to stop the Operation Piss Off The Planet terrorist-making schemes of BushCo, they CANNOT POSSIBLY BE WORKING

This is the correct way to frame the argument to the Dem's advantage AND IT'S TRUE.

This proves that the terrorists are not, as they pathetically keep saying, dutifully reporting to Iraq because GWB has dubbed it the "front" in the WOT. That is just stupid. FIGHTING THEM THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE IS OFFICIALLY NOT WORKING. The London bombings proved that as well.

We are lucky that the British government was able to thwart the attacks. And I have faith in the airport security workers in our country, that they would be able to do the same.

Many people have forgotten that Bin Laden is still an asshole. Just because we opposed the invasion in Iraq, that doesn't give us permission to not care about security issues at all.

Some are even suggesting that the attack was to deflect attention away from a Democratic primary in Connecticut? Give me a break.

been from within. Now that someone has terror attacked the US from outside the US, we throw our arms up, get scared, loose our liberties, run our nation debt up, and kill innocent people. Yes, our government should be keeping us save. But should be able to do it without trying to scare the crap out of us.

I don't doubt there are many in the world who'd like to do us harm right now, but busting a bunch of guys sitting around talking about making explosives out of gatorade and iPods?

I don't *refuse* to believe that there are "terror plots" out there -- I find this one mighty hard to swallow, however.

If only they'd had a gun, or a pointed object of some kind (other than their pointy heads), I'd take it a bit more seriously.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I see those posts, too. And I think I can't really blame them too much for feeling like this could be a political stunt because the current bunch in power seem capable and willing to do anything. But I, for one, do not doubt that there are terrorists that want to kill a bunch of us and that they're plotting, etc.

I do think our reaction to 9-11 has created more terrorists in more ways than one. The obvious way is the bombing and attacking of innocent civilians and blaming all of Islam for the actions of a few. But the less obvious way is that we are giving them just what they wanted: fear, disruption, headlines, wars, chaos, the forfeiting of our rights. They wanted us to react this way. They wanted to provoke us into proving that we are the assholes the world suspects we are.

  That half being the disgust and anger at the Iraq war, Israel's invasion of Lebanon, etc.

  The other half, as you describe it, is an unwillingness to accept that there really are terrorists out to get us. While the Iraq/Lebanon side does apply to a large number of DUers, I think the accusation of disbelief on the other side is based on a misunderstanding that most DUers chalk up the terrorist threat to fantasies propagandized by the Boosh Administration.

  Many threads do, if taken at face value, appear to intimate that this is the case. "New terror alert! I wonder what Bush wants to hide now?!" is the side you're seeing, the side lots of us (and especially outsiders) see. But we all watched the towers fall, each of us, hundreds of times. We know that terrorists exist. But no-one really spends the time posting an asterisk behind their rant with a footnote at the bottom which reads "Yes, I do know that there are really terrorists out to get us."

  If you are unfamiliar with the background (which most of us are) of other posters, some very polarized opinions appear to be espoused. But this is a mis-perception.

  A good example is an PM exchange that I've done with another poster on the Middle East conflict. They and I represent two ends of the spectrum. Specifically, the topic was on the bombing of Lebanese territory which caused civilian deaths. This person, as I, pretty-much only post about what we disagree about. If you were to look at their posts and mine it would appear that they supported Israel entirely in it's military efforts and that I was entirely critical of them. But there are a great number of unspoken common-denominators which posters, often if not almost entirely, omit because it's just too much of a hassle to include little disclaimers in their messages- even when, ultimately, it might help others reading it more clearly understand them.

  So we exchanged PM's. It was clear that this poster did not, ultimately, believe that Israel would have the right to kill civilians and I made it clear that Israelis did have the right to live a life without fear. But you wouldn't necessarily see that in our public exchanges- which are based on our disagreements, rather than our agreements.

  When you see threads and posters seemingly espousing thoughts that the Bush is fabricating terror alerts realize that there are two equal grains of truth contained: The admission that there are terrorists who really wish to destroy America and that the Bush administration has and will manipulate any fact for their own advantage.

  Only the tiniest sliver of Democratic Underground users really subscribe to unrealistic fantasies about this and other situations. But that's more a reflection of humanity than anything having to do with our politics or membership. However, again, taking some of the threads on their face value can be misleading because they do not provide an appropriate context to be clearly understood in.

PB

It is indeed often true that there is less diagreement here than meets the eye on many questions.

thanks

Thanks for such a patient explanation, PB--very well-reasoned for the Literalists among us.

Maybe this is merely another clash of styles between the Literalists and the Laterals perhaps(??)

SURELY there are not HOARDS of DUers who think there are no terrorist plots. But there ARE hoards of DUers who do not trust this govt as far as we can kick em. There's more of a CONNECTION (of the dots) than a DISCONNECT going on, IMO.

the real thing looks and feels completely different.

Most of the time poor, angry people don't have the ways and means to pull off sophisticated attacks. They end up either screwing up because the criminal ones are mostly idiots to begin with or they shit in their own backyards. When Liberty City melted down in the early 80's I couldn't believe that the black people were burning down their own neighborhoods. All they had to do was go a couple of miles east and they could have destroyed the fancy white peoples homes and businesses instead. Go figure?

Thanks to fellow DU'er Sabra
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1877057

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060810/pl_afp/britainatta...

<snip>

But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.



according to the Guardian, they've been monitoring this for several months:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6006659,00...

<snip>

Details of the plot only emerged for the first time in the early hours. But police later revealed the arrests followed an "unprecedented level of surveillance" - stretching back to December last year - involving meetings, movements, travel, spending and the "aspirations of a large group of people".

But since this came out of England perhaps there is something to it. Unfortunately, I think Bush is generating more terrorists with his terrible foreign policy. But the terrorists being bred by current policy are probably a long way from the sophistication required to mount a major attack. Give them ten years and it may be different. The current crop like the ones arrested today are coming out of Pakistan, Afghanistan and who knows, maybe Saudi Arabia again.Northen Africa is another dangerous breeding ground, and our policies are certainly creating converts.

I don't think you should necessarily conflate today's plot with Iraq and Lebanon, nor think that questioning these reports is in conflict with the belief that our current policies are making things worse in the long run.

However, one can be suspicious on how each threat is handled. One can look how the British conduct themselves when handling the situation today vs. the language used by our president. Also, our government has proven it's dishonesty to the point whereby people look at things to be critical of instead of paying attention to the threat itself.

If it's not creating more terrorists, then this plot would seem less likely to be real, and more likely to be arranged.
If it is, this plot is more likely to be real, but is it less likely to be arranged?

I'm sure the war is creating more terrorists, or at least more terrorist-minded people, but it's the use of the terror as political arm twisting that is in question IMHO. Contrary to what they (the Brit govt.) say; carry on - they do use it the same way as Bush used 911; blow it sky high mediawise.

Why not turn this around and demand that they stop giving war mongering speeches in connection with terror attacks - real or not - like Bush did today, based on the fact that provocation leads to further conflict? That's the deflection, you know. A reason for more anger, more aggressive talk, while a normal president would used common sense instead. Bush is appearing as to want to create more terrorists.

There's some discrepancies:
They could've arrested these people silently and catered them away without noticing anyone, that would be in accordance with the notorious secrecy of this administration. They've done so many times before. It would be in accordance with the thought that this business isn't over yet, there are people on the loose, presumably wanting to blow up airlines. Why go public and call them "islamic fascists" if he wants to avoid the attack? Why does he go out of his way to tell the whole world that they've interrupted a terror plot when the work is just half finished?
At least, we should acknowledge the timing of the plot's disclosure and the PR effect it has for Bush.

...speeches in connection with terror attacks - real or not - like Bush did today, based on the fact that provocation leads to further conflict? That's the deflection, you know. A reason for more anger, more aggressive talk, while a normal president would used common sense instead. Bush is appearing as to want to create more terrorists."

Mogster, you hit the nail on the head.

not to say it hasn't happened but sometimes even our candidates legitamitely lose.

However, the devil is in the details. I have no reason to believe the specifics of what we're being told is true. Why should I?

attacks on the US or its citizens within the next few years. I am dismayed by what I view as unnecessary hysteria that seems to surround the 'discovery' of any type of plot no matter how advanced it is. If the British, Pakistani, and US intelligence agencies have been working on this one for several months, then why did everyone wait until the 'round-up' of suspects to put more security measures in place? It's like locking the barn door after the horses have gone.

I stated somewhere on DU today that I would much rather be killed by a 'terrorist' than promote the endless wars and destruction of all living Muslims promoted by so many in this administration and their fearful supporters.

We're all more likely to die without health insurance than be killed in a terrorist attack. The argument is how to successfully and rationally combat the thousand-fold number of 'terrorists' that our prior and current actions have created. Screaming, 'terra, terra, terra' and 'anyone who doesn't believe GW is the best man to fight this, is a terrorist supporter' is useless.

We need to take the $billions being spent in occupying Iraq and implement the suggestions of the 9/11 commission to secure the country. We need get the US military out of the business of creating more enemies for the US and let the FBI, local police, and CIA track and surveil groups that might wish to harm us, be they domestic or foreign. We need to give up dreams of empire. We need sensible rules for what can be taken on airplanes and 100% checking of cargo loaded on planes.

it's hard not to be skeptical. In 2004 we were in a panic here in NYC because they were going to blow up the Citicorp building. THEN we find that was old information. It's always suspect because of their timing. BUT, I do give this one more credence because it was not the US that uncovered the alleged plot. A little skepticism can be healthy, but I think some are overboard with their paranoia.

uncertainty of the world increasing, especially with simple equations such as: "If you were to take a swing at that man over there, what would his most likely response be?" "Yes you are correct; a use of force is met with reaction, most notably, force." No need to get all complicated like pointing out how weighting the equation is necessary because there is no such thing as an "equal and opposite" reaction when we attack smaller and less technological armies.

That can be saved for the next round.

The war is creating more terrorists... over there. We are fighting them "over there". The "insurgents", or, the Iraqi people who are trying to take their country back (as I like to call them) are fighting them, and us, because we are the terrorists in their eyes.

I'm beginning to doubt there have been any "real" terrorist attacks, or thwarted attacks, on US soil... ever.


Watch the stories coming and going on the news... that's where you'll find the clues.

considering blowing up a plane or planes? Could well be. Why not? It's happened before. That kind of thing will happen as long as wealthy people starve most of the rest of the world.

is this episode completely blown out of proportion for political reasons by would-be totalitarians? Absolutely yes.

There is terrorism. There are terrorists. Does the actual threat they pose justify the neocon response or the level of fear they have cultivated for their own political gain? Not even fucking close. It is unadulterated bullshit.

the spinners who declare us weak on terrorism. I think it is completely irresponsible and reckless to immediately dismiss and mock terror threats when they occur and it is a sure way to lose a commoner's ear who we want to convince to vote for our side.

Researching the threat and identifying absurdities, inadequacies and improbabilities is a responsible thing to do and the great minds at DU have debunked some before.

But wholesale kneejerk mocking when a legitimate one arises, without first letting all of the facts present themselves, is just plain dumb.

say they are. It's the ones that they aren't saying are happening that actually are happening, and that you have to worry about. If they say they are going to happen then you can rest assured they really aren't going to happen. If they happen, then you know those are ones that really were going to happen, and they wouldn't have happened if they had said they were going to happen. The fact that they actually did happen just goes to show you that they were real based on the fact that no one said they were gonna happen. That's how you can tell the difference between what they are saying will happen just because they want us to think it will happen, and what actually is gonna happen but they aren't gonna tell us it's gonna happen, because they don't know it's gonna happen because they are too busy telling us about the stuff they just want us to think is gonna happen. It's really quite simple.

.

Whitehouse officials saying things like "Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big."

Maybe there really was a terrorist plot. Maybe not. What's pissing off the majority of people here isn't whether a plot existed, it's how the media and the Fucktard-in-Chief is trying to use this to promote the anti-Arabic racism and warmonger propaganda. I have no idea whether this was a real plot or made up out of whole cloth. But why is it being sold the way it is? If what they are saying is really true, then 1) it was over with weeks ago, for all practical purposes, 2) we didn't even do it, and 3) it never even happened anyway. So yes, terrorism still goes on. This wasn't a case of it.

I believed the plot just fine up until I started hearing about Gatorade and Ipods and people smuggling ingredients of an explosive that would be assembled in the airline washroom and ignited with a camera flash. And the main reason why I believed it is because it came out of England. Maybe it IS a genuine plot. But given the increasingly Onion-like storyline, it would be irresponsible of me not to wonder if Blair and Rove didn't cook this up to boost their ratings and knock the Israel/Lebanon conflict off the front pages and help turn Joe Lieberman into a Republican.

:headbang:
rocknation

(sorry for the shouting, but sometimes on Will's threads, one needs to shout to get heard)

It's DU DISTRUST.

I fault no one here for their skepticism and distrust of Bush & Co., the corporate media, the MIC, etc.

I've seen this quite a bit:

This is all a plan by the Bush administration to distract us from _________ (the Lamont/Lieberman issue or any number of other situations you can insert here - I've seen a couple of different scenarios). It's false, it's totally made up, they are just trying to manipulate us.




And then in the same breath:

The threat is over, done, they've arrested everyone. So, why the added security, why the raised alert level for the planes? Why inconvenience us??




Which is it?
Sounds like it's time for a reality check to me.

kentuck (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-10-06 04:19 PM
Original message
What's wrong with being skeptical about this latest terrorist threat?

After all, nothing happened. At least, not yet? Why should we feel inclined to believe that everything the government and the M$N are saying is true? Granted, the "terrorists" have every right to hate us and there is good reason to believe they could resort to an attack such as we have been advised.

However, to suggest that they were going to kill us by the thousands with shampoo and hydrogen peroxide and other toiletries does stretch the imagination. If they are this desperate to kill us, that they must resort to VO5, then why is everybody shaking like a dog shitting a peach seed? If this is all they have, and it has been "foiled", isn't all this an over-reaction by everyone?

We can just see 3 or 4 swarthy males going into a bathroom on a plane, setting up their little labratories with Bunsen burners or whatever, and mixing their explosives as everyone else on the plane naps on their pillows and eats peanuts...It all sounds so incredible. Not to be skeptical is what I cannot understand...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kentuck

I remember something a few months ago.. something here in the US. I'm a bit fuzzy on it, but it was a group that wanted to blow up a building. It was all over Faux News and CNN and the WHite House rode it big time.. but it turned out it was an unorganized group with no real means to do the deed, and no actual plans to do it.. just some ramblings.

So forgive us if we are skeptical. That doesn't make us weak or stupid or paranoid. It makes us discerning.

thanks...it's good to hear that word again...

So...we are creating more terrorists with our messed-up foreign policy...but simultaneously we refuse to believe those newly-created terrorists want to harm us? Are these newly-created terrorists sitting around playing cribbage or something?

You've created an either/or argument where none should exist. Fact is, both can be true.

We can believe that bushco policies are creating more terrorists.

We can also believe that the terrorist threat is hyped or outright false--but also that there are some authentic terrorists who seek to harm us.

This is not an either/or proposition and I'm surprised that you, a former teacher, would frame it as such.





Cher

Maybe you're right. But it hurts my brain to hear people say we are increasing the terror threat, and then hear the same people say all the terror threats are fascist-enabling fantasies.

There's always going to be an extreme view. I've come to expect it. LUCKILY, we have a few posters on here that help pull it all back in, like yourself (I was about to ask where my H20 Man was today), because you have earned the respect of many. Had I posted this I would be vilified or shamed onto the last page for having suggested as much. Thanks for starting a discourse that was much needed today.

agreement with Mr. Pitt on this topic.

:-)

In my book. He's had almost 8 years to work on this and we are still subject to these attacks.

"Humanitarian Organization" who have been actively waging a legitimate resistance struggle for the past six years... the six years since Israel pulled out of Lebanon.

I do find it curious that some of the same people who are utterly unconvinceable when it comes to Hezbollah having it in for Israel and Jews-in-general soil their shorts at a(nother) spuriously timed "terra" threat announcement. (I'm not saying that's you, Will.)

That said, hey- I don't know. I suspect there really was some sort of plot, here. How far past the "theoretical stage" (aka some yahoos talking about it on the internet, like that "plot" in Florida) it had gotten, I think remains to be seen. It does sound to me like they've been following this thing since December of LAST YEAR. Why, then, all of a sudden jack the terror 'lert through the roof today? what was the, if you will, "imminent threat"?...

And was its name, perchance, "Lamont"?

I heard a tiny tidbit that the "intelligence" to mount the terror raids today came from America...it's only a small clue but my spidey-senses tell me that more will come out about the intelligence in the next few days, weeks and months.

(Just like all these terror stories - there's always more, or less to them, than meets they eye)

time. I can imagine agents working on numerous leads and plots and raids- some we will never be told due to national security reasons.

The foreign policy of * & Co is certainly breeding ground for hatred. That is particulary true at a time when the US is the only one at the UN opposing an immediate cease fire to the ME conflict.

"The raid" or "raids", we have seen can be staged and poitically exploited -regardless whether there is substance behind it or not.

So hatred is there and increasing -true - but information release to be timed and for particular propaganda purposes appears also to be fact, especially for this administration, which is laden with misinformation and half truths and outright lies.

Isn't it also true, that in the olden days national security matters were fought behind the scenes and classified?

stupidity and mass murder, but I don't believe what this government (either the chimp's or the poodle's) tells us.

Neo-Con "agenda". when, in reality, some stuff is, but most isn't. You can tell what is and what isn't. For instance, the Miami "Terrorists". Today's threat sounds credible.

I certainly agree that the illegal occupation of Iraq has raised more enemies than friends. I do believe it has put us in more danger individually and as a country.

Some do doubt the validity of the British police in the newest situation. Perhaps this is because we are all educated and when you have researched the Downing Street Minutes then you realize that the Brits have worked with * from the very start of this whole thing. They have both known it is all a pile of hot steaming dung.

I believe we can all agree that * has lied to the American public repeatedly. If you can agree with this last statement then you can agree that we would be fools to accept what anyone in the cabal says without at least examining it.

When we think of the last big terrorist capture then our mind goes to those poor folks from Florida. We were led to believe they were going to attack the Sears tower. I bet most of the population thinks our government did a great job and stopped a huge attack. How many of them even realize these folks could not even afford boots and our government bought boots for them? It is ludicrous to think that they would have done anything. It is stories such as this that makes people skeptical.

For myself, I believe new enemies have been made and I believe the Brits did catch these people. I am more skeptical of what happens on our side of the pond. It would seem that * has used fear as a tactic to try and keep the American public in line and do what he wants us to do. No matter how bad the news, it seems they try to use it to their advantage in some way, shape or form.

It is with all of this information in mind that I am grateful that the people were caught overseas. I would point out they were caught not because Georgie was on top of keeping us safe and sound. This is why I roll my eyes at anything the Republicans have had to say today. I can not count how many things I have heard from the right about this terrorist attack. And when you hear people like Tom Delay accusing us of not even wanting to catch the terrorist and to just talk things out, then I think I can be very suspicious of the right.

It is disgusting how they will use any event to try and win favor with the public. They trot out the "L" word and put us down every chance they get. It is hard to take the cabal seriously when they are not the ones catching the crooks. It is hard to take them seriously when they use a bad situation to smear us instead of getting up there to just assure the American public. It is hard to take them seriously when they have lied to us so many times.

I do not see any contradictions in the way I feel because I do believe some bad people were caught. I think a lot of people just approach the * cabal as being a joke and not caring about our welfare. Are we to believe they care about every US citizen after the tragedy they allowed in New Orleans? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

It's presumed false because the administration said it. Duh.

The way you even phrased it was genius "But when we hear of a terrorist plot to harm us" - how smashingly genius of you to leave out the key part: FROM WHOM DO WE HEAR THIS?

Presumptions can be overridden - by details that cohere well together and aren't contradicted by others, whose testimony we hold credible (there can be other ways - that's just one common way).

NOBODY doubts that there are terrorists plotting out there to harm us - the idea that there is such doubt is an idiotic strawman that not a single person I'm aware of believes. But it's quite a different thing to believe what the administration says. History teaches us that such belief - without scads of corroborating, coherent, and non-contradictory evidence - is likely to lead to ruin.

There's absolutely NO inconsistency in that. Only in your convenient strawman.


Still waiting for 24 business hours....

n/t

I believe the plot was there. The B*sh cabal has made us a hated country. I'm surprised that more shit hasn't hit the fan. Perhaps because intelligence people in other countries didn't get blamed and villified like ours did. We will get hit, no doubt. We are the pariahs of the world now. Thanks , dubya - ya dumbass!

i'm off to scribble with my crayons now, outside the lines as usual.

dp

Of course there are bad people, and some of them band together and decide to do bad things ....

And of course WE want bad people to not hurt people ....

Yes: This government's policies DO create hatred 'out there' .... and I accept the fact that those who harbor that hatred arent any different than other haters .....

Moral action should be universal, and the immoral actions by one party do not provide a justification for an immoral response ....

My thought this morning: WHO spends more time thinking about how to kill more people ? .... The weapons designers in US think tanks ??? ... or groups of terrorists dreaming of how to cause the death of thousands .... ?

Death is death ..... killing is killing ....

A pox on BOTH their houses ....

Thanks Will ....

yes, their policies are creating more terrorists who hate the US and want to do us harm . . . by the thousands, and all across the planet . . .

which, btw, is something our "representatives" in Congress REALLY should be addressing and seeking to correct -- or at least minimize . . . and with the highest priority, i.e. NOW . . . hell of a challenge that will require some very skilled statesmen -- something thoroughly lacking in the BushCo stable . . .

the problem is that, given BushCo's record for truthfulness, anything and everything they say or do is immediately and automatically suspect -- and very often just assumed to be untrue . . . there IS a record, ya know? . . . they have less credibility than OJ's search for the real killers . . .

so permit us our "artistry" in this real world, where the ability to tolerate ambiguity isn't a problem . . . it's a survival skill . . .

and those apprehended desired to cause harm

just like I'm sure the Miami "terrorist" group are actual people who actually talked about committing harm.

I just don't think it comes anywhere close to being all that important. Cops nabbed some bad guys. Good for the cops.

NOT fodder for any political comment whatsoever.

as well as "bogus" situations like the FLA terrorist plot, that many are disinclined to believe ANYTHING, ESPECIALLY if it benefits shrubco from a propaganda standpoint and is based on information that we can't verify and that shrubco and allies have control over.

That's the problem. I entirely agree with the sentiment that just because shrubco is terrible doesn't mean that some of the threats they pimp & exploit aren't real. But it's a normal, and I think, justified, tendency with anyone who's been paying attention, to distrust any information from them especially if it benefits the terror war propaganda line, even though there will be real incidents.

This is the problem when you are the little president who cried wolf, and continue to cry wolf.

an honest person will have to admit that at least some terrorists create themselves regardless of what we do.

* and his cronies in the Homeland Security (Chertoff and before him Ridge) have exploited the national security threat for their own gain on so many consecutive occasions that now when they cry terror, people are skeptical.

I for one believe this threat is genuine because it becomes from the British. The British intelligence and police services are generally quite reliable and non-partisan on counter-terrorism issues (although I do have issues with them from time to time) and I'm more inclined to take them seriously.

The problem is that the Administration has cried wolf so many times that even I have to ask questions and proceed cautiously when I hear of a new potential terror threat. Remember the "heightened state of alerts" after the 2004 Democratic National Convention?

When the Clinton Administration alerted us to a terror threat (i.e. the LA airport attacks and so on) I believed them unquestioningly because they always showed professionalism and competence in the way they handled terrorism and never sought to play politics about it or exaggerate the impact. The adults were in charge and I trusted that they were giving us genuine information and they were going to handle to handle the problem accordingly.

This Administration has an appalling track record here and so therefore when a new terrorist attack threat comes up, people have to think "are they being serious or they just having us on?". It's a sad state of affairs to be in and I can only hope that the next Administration establishes a good track record on not playing politics with national security and terror threats

We should be trumpeting the screw ups that Bush has made in prosecuting his "war on terror" to the rooftops.

This is evidence, folks, Osama Bin Laden is alive & well and waiting to strike while our fearless president is all tied up in knots in Iraq.

Anything else is just blabber.

This is proof of the Bush administration's failures.

What more could we ask for?