Of course this was a conspiracy!

I'm surprised at the people on DU who have been making fun of what they call 'tinfoil hatters'. If this isn't a textbook case of a conspiracy, then real conspiracies can't ever happen! This administration knew as of last week that the arrests were going to happen, they started in hammering Democrats as being terrorist enablers 2 days before the story broke, they are cynically using this non-event to scare everyone into believing that we were only minutes away from having 10 airliners blown up, and The Fucktard-in-Chief lands for an 'impromptu' press conference 5 MINUTES before it is scheduled!

The arrests don't have to be faked for this to be a conspiracy. All that has to happen is that the government fabricate an issue for an ulterior motive, and seeing as how:

1) we didn't have anything at all to do with the arrests,
2) this was in the works for quite some time (some sources say over a year),
3) nothing happened anyway, and
4) it appears that the plot was nowhere near completion to begin with,

the attention this has gotten from the media and from The Fucktard-in-Chief is a complete hoax. What else do we need for this 'conspiracy' to actually be a conspiracy? Does anyone seriously believe that the media and the administration response is justified at all, and that it isn't solely politically motivated?

and recommended.

And I proudly state: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

and everyone who is quick with the sarcastic comments seems to be missing this point. Lamont was just the conduit through which they got their message across. Whether it was fabricated or not, they attempted to use it for political gain. Makes it all the more suspicious doesn't it?

It wasn't about Lamont, it was about boosting their stature and trying to scare everyone again.

for all those "Bush hating, cowardly, cut-and-run, liberal wusses" they are scared sh**less stop turning the other cheek and hand them their heads. If they can get a few more minutes of of unfiltered MSM air time, they just might sell this crap and get close enough to steal the next election.

edit to add: typical rovian jujitsu, turn the strength of Lamont's victory against us and make us look like we're foaming at the mouth (those loony bloggers want planes to be blown up)

really pretty easy to do if you have no scruples

:tinfoilhat:

:tinfoilhat:

In my opinion, the question is not whether the "terrorist threat" is real. The real issue is how it is used.

Personally, I do believe there is a terrorist movement that we have to worry about. I also think in general terms that 9-11 is basically as it has been portrayed as being.

However, even with that, the question is how we respond, and how the politicians/leades/media deal with it. And to what purpose.

If we assume that the terrorist arrests yesterday was totally legitimate, it is absolutely inexcusablke for Cheney and Melman and the rest of the spin machine to conveniently raise the issue as a prelude to public knowledge and the ensuing brouhaha. THAT was a political conspiracy, and the Media is obediently playing aliong.

The 'conspiracy' isn't in whether they found potential terrorists, it's in what they do with the information - and they clearly used the information to dishonest ends.

The Repukes are being opportunists here and the medai hype is WAAAAY out of proportion to the level of the threat and the stage of planning these terrorists were in.

Real shaky plot, REALLY BIG hype

I can't get past my disdain for a barnyard filled with headless chickens. We're 'informed' of an investigation underway for up to 12 months or more, involving liquids explosives akin to the Bojinka 'revelations' of ten years ago, supposedly culminating in arrests precipitated by arrests of 6 people in Pakistan a week ago ... and they finally decide to ban liquids from airline flights? Why now? Why not earlier? Why not last year?

While we're at it, just how many actual "terrorists" (as distinct from ordinary citizens finally being pushed over the line) have been detected (and arrested) by airline security?

The other day I walked past a fellow sitting on a park bench ripping small pieces from a newspaper and throwing them into the air. I asked him why he was doing that, littering the park.

He replied, "It keeps the elephants away."

I informed him, "There aren't any elephants around here."

He proudly stated, "See? It works!!"

Why are our tax dollars going to supporting private businesses (the airlines) in keeping the elephants away?

It's because it was falling apart. The "gang" probably couldn't finish putting it together so they had to be taken down before they dispersed.

Hi EP, and yes, NO doubt in my mind this
whole thing is more Rovian manipulation of the masses.
Not that terrorism isn't a threat, under Bush it
the threat has become much worse.
Like Plaid Adder wrote, they are happy about that
because it helps them politically.
How sick is that?
But how true.

I started a thread last night that got laughed
into oblivion, but I am still asking,
besides the manipulation factor-
"Who benefits from the liquid ban?"

My intitial thoughts are connected to
the flood in India and the corporations (Coke and subsidiaries)
hurt ($$$) by it.

What I am waiting to see is if the
airlines will now charge for bottled water, etc...
during flights.

My husband is flying Sunday and I have
instructed to let me know as soon as he lands.

Sorry, I just can't help but wonder if they
also used the incident to boost some
sales.
You KNOW how these fuckers are.
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
Hat firmly on,
BHN

Under the guidance of a police "agent" who had worked the case for a year. A soon as the press figures out that this thing was a hoax, there will be the usual news vacuum for a few days "to clear the air"
and then any reference to the "plot" will be wrapped in vague generalities. All the bullshit new TSA stuff will suddenly vanish without explanation too.

:kick:

like they watched these folks for over a year (close up) and got nothing but some homemade bull crap (who knows how much of that they were nudged into also). If people are not suspicious they otta be.

Of course, Bush and Rove saw this as an opportunity to advance his standing. He positions himself as the defender of America from terrorists who are out to kill us. 95% of Americans believe that this was a real threat and that if successful, many hundreds, perhaps thousands of Americans could have been killed.

Bush and Rove say Dems are not capable of defending American from these people - that we'd rather negotiate with them and discuss their hatred for us that makes them want to destroy us.

And what do we do? We at DU have started probably 100 threads in the last two days saying the threat was phony or overblown or, here's the best one - it was just trumped up to take the spotlight off of Ned Lamont's win against Lieberman.

And that doesn't even count the hundreds of threads (and a complete forum area) devoted to portraying Arab terrorists as freedom fighters against the bloodthirsty Jews.

To the extent the views here are representative of any real Democrat running for national office - I can't imagine any voter with brains voting to place the lives of their loved ones in the hands of someone who would rather hate Bush than save American lives.

There were so many smart, creative ways we could have shown how we are actually the grown-ups when it comes to fighting terrorism - and highlighted Bush's failures to do that job. Instead we throw that chance away for fun conspiracy theories that make us feel good when we tell them to each other.

Kool aid comes in more than one color.

(Please see next post #16!)

terra-ists and terra-plots are real.

Anyone who says differently can explain that
to the families of the victims of;

the London bombings last year,

the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings.

Is Georgie and his BA taking full advantage of it
for their own purposes?

Damn right they are!

. . that we should respond in a way that does not prove Rove's assertion that we are incapable of defending America from terrorists - not actually proving it for him.

Thanks for the sage advice.

:eyes:

I personally think that the best way to do that is to make sure he knows we see through his lies.

On edit: how is not reacting to scare tactics supposed to prove we can't handle things?

I think that needs to be repeated

The media is having a friggin field day
with this one. Hell, Primetime rescheduled
their original programming last night to
have a "Terrorist Plot Foiled" special.

Something along the lines of "America Under Attack-Terror in the Sky"

PLEASE!

. . American voters, primed and ready to be focussed on whatever message any smart player could present.

Our smart message is that "we see your tactics"?

How sad. How dumb. How ultimately perfect for putting a Repub in office in 2008.

Rove doesn't have to be smart - with folks like you around on the left.

and this is bad how, exactly?

Hey, if you have any suggestions as to what we should do, I'm all ears.

. . is you present a problem - and then you bring your product in to show how your product solves that problem. The more emotionally threatening that problem can be portrayed - the stronger you can make the connection.

If you want to sell beer - you present the problem as male attractiveness to women, for example. Look at these losers. Now look at these popular guys with women all over them - they're drinking Blatz. If you want to sell life insurance - you present the problem as security for your loved ones if you die.

Here, we have a highly emotional threat to the lives of Americans handed to us in our laps.

Do you want to know what would have been a good response? Here's one:

WATERBURY, Conn. -- U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in his first campaign appearance since launching his independent re-election campaign, likened terrorists to Nazis and called for Republicans and Democrats to work together to combat them.

This is what Americans want to hear right now - working together. That frames the political intentions of Rove in a very favorable light for us. "We have bad people who want to kill us - we should be working together" - for an easy example. Better ones are there for anyone who cares to think about it.

However, if that's our only message, and we ignore the fact that this is a media crapfest to scare everyone into voting Republican (which we know it is) then we are complicit. Bush came out with this and took the "We are working together" message already, and used it to beat us up with it. If all we are going to say is "We want to be involved too" then we lose.

>WATERBURY, Conn. -- U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, in his first campaign appearance since launching his independent re-election campaign, likened terrorists to Nazis and called for Republicans and Democrats to work together to combat them.

>This is what Americans want to hear right now - working together.

I'm an American, and this is the last thing I want to hear. When the Democrats work with the repugs we get Roberts and Alito and the Iraq war resolution. I'd rather hear that The war in Iraq did not prevent air terror, police work did. I'd rather hear that shampoo and baby formula are not bad things on an airplane. I am willing to entertain the possibility that there was an organization capable of pulling this off, and they were caught. I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that the group was nowhere near pulling off a midair explosion, and * is milking this for all it's worth. Frankly, that * is milking this is what I am most willing to believe, because it fits the pattern.

Bill

WATERBURY, Conn. -- US Sen. Candidate Ned Lamont speaks out the terror plot in the UK, "I applaud the successful efforts by UK police and intelligence agencies to thwart this plot using just the kind of methods recommended by the bipartisan 9-11 Commission. Instead of implementing the findings called for by the commission and beefing up our security at home, Mr. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress have sacrificed American lives and drained the US Treasury with its misguided adventure in IRAQ. Instead of pursuing known terrorists and their organizations with techniques that have proven successful time and again, they have stretched our resources and misused our military to preemptively attack a sovereign nation that by Mr. Bush's own admission was not involved in 9-11 and possessed no WMD. It is past time for our nation to have an honest dialog on how best to protect its citizens from all threats, foreign or domestic."

Think the MSM would accuse him of being partisan, that he was taking unfair advantage of the fear for political gain? Essentially, the echo chamber has said that Lamont and all Dems aided the plotters by not supporting *, so why isn't the opposite a valid arguement?

are not typically the same thing.

I think this whole thing story is an unmitigated Chicken Little load of scaremongering crap.

But I doubt that would market well, what with the media reporting everything so breathlessly on every single channel.

However, what I think would market well is:

1) BushCo is making us less safe by needlessly making enemies all over the world,
2) BushCo is making us less safe with his failed occupation in Iraq which has nothing to do with terrorism,
3) BushCo likes and welcomes terrorisms because they can use it for political ends,
4) BushCo loves to scare people as much as possible for political ends, so nobody can ever tell if they are telling the truth and being circumspect or just crying wolf again.

Liquid explosives, the whole nine yards. Google Bojinka for more information. The Bojinka plotters actually managed to kill someone with one of their nitroglycerine improvised bombs. So what did Clinton do about it? Our intelligence agents, in cooperation with their opposite numbers in the Phillipines, broke up the plot. Just like the Brits did last week, only without all the "Boogaboogabooga! We must take your toothpaste and iPods" horseshit.

...which is a combination of intelligence, police work and military action.

We Democrats certainly wouldn't have let bin Laden escape at Bora Bora and we certainly would not have ignored the threats around the world since then.

We Democrats certainly wouldn't have spent the last five years twiddling our thumbs making the Indiana Corn Festival safe from the terror threat while ignoring the real security needs of the nation.

We Democrats certainly wouldn't sell control of America's ports to Dubai Ports World.

Given the truth, we Democrats wouldn't wouldn't have spent the last five years stuck in Iraq, the greatest strategic blunder in our nation's history.

And that, rather than stating we'll work together with the Republicans which got our nation into this sorry state of affairs, is the message the Democrats should be giving the American people.

If all we say is "Gee Wally, I wanna cooperate too!" then why should anyone take us seriously. We KNOW they made this out to be much more serious than it was, we KNOW they used it politically, letting it roll over us like Republican Joe Lieberman guarantees they get away with it, and it guarantees that only their message gets out.

but so is the possibility of infiltrators, govt complicity, agent provocateurs, double-agents etc.

That's why they call them "secret agents". I'm not saying any of those things were involved in this case, we just don't know, that kind of info only comes out years later.

How many people came away with the message that there was almost an attack on the airliners yesterday? THERE WASN'T! I'm not saying there wasn't a plot. I'm saying that it was known about well in advance and busted up, apparently long before it was even ready to be put into play. That does not warrant the idiocy comeing from the media and this administration one bit!

Damn straight I hate Bush for this. This is cynical manipulation of the public, on purpose.

. . and turning this event against Bush. You insread, play right into his hands. And your hatred of Bush makes you see me as the enemy for pointing this out to you - for trying to suggest a better way.

Now, who do you think has been drinking the kool aid?

and I'm sorry you feel that way.

I posted this because I am trying to turn this against Bush. What is true is that this event, however it went, clearly has been twisted to be used as a political tool. They knew about it enough in advance to manipulate the facts to inspire terror across the country. This is all I have said. I have not at any time made statements saying that the original situation was a fake. I am not claiming anything other than that the administration and the media are liars, and we both agree on that. So exactly how am I playing into Bush's hands?

Also, I never made any comments about drinking Kool-aid.

. . around my head it is sometimes difficult to remember which stinger I need to pull out first.

For us to complain that this is a PR stunt is the worst possible response we could offer. Americans are thinking how lucky they are that their duaghter who is flying home from England next week will not die a terrible fiery death falling from 35,000 to an unknown grave under the Atlantic ocean.

They do not want to hear our accusations that the person who was instrumentral in protecting us from that (entirely true or not) is playing politics. To any sane American - the person saying that is playing politics - and they will despise that person for doing that.

We are playing into their hands. Any chance that we had of making gains in Nov or 2008 - we are throwing away with this kind of stupidity.

and people need to know that. We can't simply say "Good job, Bush, Thanks!" He didn't do anything. We have to make it clear that what threat there was has been completely overblown for cynical ends, otherwise we really are surrendering the issue to Bush.

Had the plot went down and worked, we would be blaming bush for it - even if he didn't do it of course. Even if it was launched from british shores and their intel failed - we would turn it into politics against bush.

Why? Because he is the commander in chief. He gets praise when things go well, and damned when they go bad.

I would bet a year of paychecks GD would have been pounded with threads about how bush failed has this plot became reality. Well he didn't fail. The right would say it was his leadership and work with other countries that made this happen (ie stopping the plot).

It seems crappy to some, but that is just the way things seem to work imho.

The other point to remember in all this is that the US wasn't in on it. So, why should he take credit? Why not have the prime minister of Iceland take credit too?

Britain's MI-5 intelligence service and Scotland Yard had been tracking the plot for several months, but only in the past two weeks had the plotters' planning begun to crystallize, senior U.S. officials tell TIME. In the two or three days before the arrests, the cell was going operational, and authorities were pressed into action. MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

(who I trust on this issue BTW) he has found no indication that the US was involved in this, or even that it was going to be an attack on the US.

As someone who lives in the UK, I'm mystified as to how GWB (and the BushCo machine) has managed to turn this into a propaganda exercise in the United States, and some people actually believe he masterminded the arrests. Simply amazing.

That's not how it's being presented in Britain, because that's not how it happened - in fact, I've even been surprised at how little Bush has been mentioned in our coverage at all. You really do get completely different news reports in the US. To people who don't live there, American news often seems like it comes from a parallel universe.

that anyone is playing into anyone's hands, except for those that accept the spin. Questioning the media and this administration's motives are confronting the bullshit spin. That's what I deem as smart, healthy and cautious...

Throwing your hands up in the air and swallowing what this administration and the media says, is the opposite... it's stupid, dangerous, and reckless.

If we fall into bizarre conspiracies about how the plot never could have existed or that aliens are in charge or something else nonsensical, then we are fueling Rove. If we call him on the fact that he is manipulating facts to Republican ends and prove it, then we are not.

Why go to "Code Red" because of a foiled, aspirational plot?

about 9/11 and everything else. Why should you trust them to keep you safe?

Lou Dobbs clip on CNN - "9/11 Lies" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahv3VdknyZ4

If you have a problem figuring out which post is attacking you specifically, perhaps when you reply you should re-read the original post. It took me some time to realize why I was so angry about this, and I finally figured it out: you didn't even bother to find out what I wrote. Instead you decided to attack me for someone else's words, and just try to stick them in my mouth.

If you have a swarm of angry hornets buzzing around your head, maybe you should quit kicking the nest.

Seriously. "Turning this event against Bush"? WTF. Bush is ONCE AGAIN blatantly using terrorism for political gain, and you have a problem with calling him out on it? This isn't the first time he's manipulated the media before an election.

How do you guys even end up on this site? Seriously. Should we be praising the chimp for spreading propaganda and fear?

Sorry, msmcghee, I don't see wht your problem is on this. I'm not running around claiming that there never was a plot, or that the suspects never existed. I'm saying that the media and the administration is using whatever it has to manipulate people. We agree that this is true, so why do you think I shouldn't point it out?

Yes, I can see that it does!

against bloodthirsty Jews. If you don't think it's at least a LITTLE bloodthirsty to bomb hundreds of civilians to get a handful of alleged terrorists, then I really don't want you weeding my garden - you'd kill the roses to kill the weeds.

Your problem is a abject failure to look at things from both sides. Our media is guilty of this, as well.

Most people here aren't hating Bush in difference to saving American lives. What they're pointing out is the obvious: Bush's policies aren't protecting American lives and are, in fact, creating more people who would want to harm our citizenry. It's not that we put American lives at risk to hate Bush, we hate Bush because he puts American lives at risk.

The Bush administration has in the last 5 years used exactly this kind of terror-mongering to get whatever they want. They've used it to attack and invade Iraq under false pretenses, they manipulated the election with it, they have used it to ram through the most vile legislation imaginable - and none of the things they have done which have severely damaged our country would have happened without panicing the populace. That's reason to hate Bush, and that's reason to shout out that we are not going to let this scare us again.

Most non-Dems don't give a damn about that. When we bring that up they see us a poiliticizing a serious threat. We are.

As I said, Rove dosn't need to be smart.

You don't think that what the administration has done is politicizing? Are you saying that they can use this to their own ends, and if we try to stop them we are in the wrong?

1) We are politicizing this. Stupidly.

2) The administration is politicizing this - and using brains to do it. They appear to be defending America from terrorists while they show us to be politicizing it.

3) They are using it to their own ends.

4) We are not wrong to stop them. We are stupid for failing to stop them. We are failing because of the stupid way we are doing it.

5) It has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with being smart.

Specifically on points #1 and #4. I do not think it is stupidly politicizing the issue to call the administration on trying to scare people. That is exactly what we have to do, otherwise we let them get away with it. If you want to claim that we need to be seen as being tough on terror, alright, but we have to point out that this is and the very least an overreaction, and we have to provide specific examples as to why this is an overreaction, and how it could be reported better. If all we say is that we are trying to fight terrorists too, that's when we look weak.

There were pundits on the news yesterday trying to use this to claim that we should be able to torture and suspend civil rights! We cannot simply go along with this. We KNOW the media coverage is false, and saying so, along with proving it, is the only way we can get that point across.

On edit: what you're advocating is exactly what the DLC and our people in Congress have been doing since 9/11. Look where that has gotten us.

for national unity with our highly unpopular opposition.

foiled aspirational plots actually ARE huge serious threats that deserve "Code Red" declarations.

Your advice is to tell Rove, "Pull a stunt like this whenever you want, and our only response will be to call for national unity -- national unity with your boss who has 33% approval and is who we all know is cynically manipulating these events to raise this number!"

.

It is apparent from your post that you have bought the whole script, right down the line.

Do you really believe that we can fight and win a war on terror? Don't you see how the futile attempt just makes more terrorists?

Do you really believe that the timing of this was just a happy coincidence that happened to come just when the "opposition" was getting all the press, even though this op has been in the works for months?

Do you really believe that our various intelligence agencies are not aware of and watching dozens of these operations and waiting, on orders from their bosses, for "the proper time" to move?

Do you really believe that one single action taken, one right abrogated, one inconvenience imposed, will make the slightest difference to those that hate us enough to die for it? Or that you are one iota safer?

Do you really think the terrorists are so stupid that they will continue to use the airlines as their primary method to attack us, especially in light of the fact that our borders, ports, and even the rail systems, are still completely open?

Do you think it has escaped their notice that we have not made the slightest effort to secure our power grid, chemical plants, and essential infrastructure?

Do you really believe you are getting anything remotely resembling news from our media that is owned by four authoritarian corporations?

What world do you live in?

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 real 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.

Many people I know and talk to are waking up to these facts. You can't keep crying wolf forever, even if the corporate media keeps aiding and abetting you.

. . you were. (Consider this a reply to the last several posts.)

Please read this carefully. Try to understand my meaning. This has nothing to do with right or wrong - or what's fair or unfair. It is about using Rove's tactics to our own advantage rather than fulfilling his wet dreams.

People here at DU are righteously pissed off that we've been lied to and manipulated and those lies have been used to put asshole repukes into office. Most of the rest of America sees all that as whining. They don't give a shit. It's what politicians do to each other. Besides, they figure if all we can do is whine and expect them to come over to our side because Karl was mean to us - all they will feel for us is contempt. They figure the next time Al Quada hits us that we'll go whining to the UN and ask permission to attack the perpetrators.

So what do we do to disabuse them of this frame that Karl has so easily put us in - we whine some more, "Oh, this isn't a real threat - it's only to divert attention from Ned Lamont's win". How fucking pathetic.

How about kicking Karl's ass with his own tactics. We use the threat of terrorism. We agree that America is under threat from people who are out to kill us. That's the first step.

Then we thank the exceptionally competent Brits for handling this very dangerpous threat to American lives expertly - and doing it with the police, not the military. And without taking anyone's civil rights away. They were smart. We might say that while we are very grateful for this positive outcome, we must ask if this attack had been planned in the USA - if things might have been come out as well. We might ask if the agency that gave us the Katrina debacle, a threat that was well known days in advance, is on top of anti-terrorism in the way that the Brits so obviously are.

We note that the only plots that have really been discovered here were non-plots - aspiration, not operations. We note that skillful surveillance allowed the Brits to wrap up the whole crew plus ringleaders it seems. We might ask if the non-plots that were uncovered by our agencies actually got the leaders - or if they are still out there because we panicked and acted too soon - instead of smart like the Brits. We note that we'll probably never know.

Do you get the idea? We don't deny the threat - we use it to show Bush's dangerous incompetence. If there's no real threat how can Bush's incompetence be dangerous? Get it?

Basically, we use the Bush tactics against him and neo-cons. We don't whine about non-existent threats that Bush is "using" terrorism for political purposes. That's playing the victim. America wants fighters as leaders - not victims. Victims will beg for sympathy. America does not want a leader who makes us into victims. Not only that, it's playing right into their hands.

Get tough - on terrorists and incompetent repukes - both of which are probably going to get Americans killed. His incompetence has already killed 2500 plus Americans in a useless war in Iraq - while Osama skates. We don't like that. We're pissed off about that.

We're out to correct that with competence and tough-minded smarts like the Brits did - like Bill Clinton did while those assholes were trying to impeach him. Stop playing the pathetic victim and start kicking some puke ass by being smarter and tougher than they are. Don't get mad - get even. That's all I'm trying to say.

and love your posts on this thread.I drive it home,whenever possible,that those who smirked at Kerry for saying we should consider this a police action were proven wrong yesterday at Heathrow and that the Iraqi war has been exposed as meaningless in regards to keeping us safe from terrorism.Keep preaching,we hear ya.

. . there are some folks here who see what's happening.

Check out this current GD thread re: Kerry's response to the plot. This is not only smart politics - he's right. Great combination punch. We need more of those and less whining about mean old Rove.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1894245

We can't keep constantly fighting them on THEIR fake-ass playing field. Their Global War On Terror (tm) is a false and very detrimental construct. The way they hype up every conceivable terrorist threat -- real or not -- like it was Armageddon is itself an extremely important and increasingly transparent issue.

As long as we play along with their terra hype machine, they hold all the cards. They can create and nurture terrorist "threats" at will, then time their "foiling" of these "threats" and hype up the perceived danger into a media frenzy whenever they think it will do them the most good.

Someone needs to point out what they are doing and why. Someone needs to lead Americans out of the our nightmare of governance based on fear and hatred. Someone needs to begin addressing the actual threats rationally and realistically rather than politically and bombastically.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114902553871278226

I have long thought, and written, that the Global War on Terror ("GWOT") is a false construct. And common sense says to most people that it is pretty nonsensical. We might as well have a war on sadness or a war on jealousy or a war on hate. As Pach writes in this post from the week-end, terror is a human emotion and you can't fight a war against it. In fact, war creates it. But then it isn't really fair to deride it as a "war on terror," is it? That's just the shortcut phrase. The real term is "war on terrorism" which makes just as little sense but in a different way. Terrorism is a method of warfare --- a specific type of cheap and dirty violence which is not eradicable, certainly not eradicable by force. It is special only in the sense that it makes no distinctions between civilians and warriors. (And if you could eliminate a particularly harsh and inhumane method of warfare, it would certainly make no sense at all to try to do it by throwing aside all civilized norms and engaging in even more odious taboos like torture.) ...

Setting Iraq aside, which was a simple imperialist invasion with no ties to this threat of terrorism, we are dealing with a "war" against certain stateless people who are loosely affiliated with Muslim extremism but could just as easily be nationalists or Christian fanatics or even environmentalists, as our justice department has recently decreed. make no mistake: the GWOT is not a simple shorthand for fighting the "islamofascists." Islamic extremism is an ideology centered in a religion and it has no "place" --- it is not a nation or even a people. Warfare as it has been understood for millennia will not "beat" it. The GWOT masterminds knew this which is why the phrase War on Terrorism was coined: it represents a permanent state of war, which is something else entirely.

This is the problem. This elastic war, this war against warfare, this war with no specific enemy against no specific country is never going to end. It cannot end because there is no end. If the threat of "islamofascism" disappears tomorrow there will be someone else who hates us and who is willing to use individual acts of violence to get what they want. There always have been and there always will be. Which means that we will always be at war with Oceania. I am not sanguine that we can put this genie back in the bottle. The right will go crazy at the prospect that someone might question whether we are really "at war." They are so emotionally invested in the idea that they cannot give it up. Indeed, the right is defined by its relationship to the bogeyman, whether communism or terrorism or some other kind of "ism" (negroism? immigrantism?). They will fight very, very hard to keep this construct going in the most literal sense. And they will probably win in the short term.

But it is long past time for people to start the public counter argument, which has the benefit of appealing to common sense. Many Americans are emerging from the relentless hail of propaganda that overtook the nation after the traumatic events of 9/11. Iraq confused people for a while, but that confusion is leaving in its wake a rather startling clarity: the "war" as the government defines it is bullshit. It will take a while for this common sense to become conventional wisdom, but it certainly won't happen if nobody is willing to say it out loud.

What we do about Islamic fundamentalism is a topic we must deal with. I suspect that it will take a global effort and a willingness to deal intelligently with the impending global oil crisis. There will be other challenges as well, including potential wars and regional strife and any of the other things that have marked civilization from the beginning. All peoples must deal with such things. But there is no war on terrorism. The nation is less secure because of this false construct. We are spending money we need not spend, making enemies we need not make and wasting lives we need not waste in the name of something that doesn't exist. That is as politically incorrect a statement as can be made in America today. But it's true.

I never said anything about not believing that the original plot was a lie. But we have to make sure that people understand that the Bush administration process is to scare them to death, then claim to be the strong father leader who will protect them The only way to break that is to make people aware of why they are afraid.

NO NO NO!

We cannot do this without pointing out that this was blown out of proportion! We can't ignore that! We have to talk about it! We have to make the point that the threat is being taken care of, by normal methods-or else Bush's agenda to make people even more scared wins out!

Saying that we know that this was blown out of proportion, here's where it was, here's what things should be-that's not whining and playing the victim! That's holding them accountable!

There's nothing at all wrong with what Kerry said, but he didn't go far enough. He, and all our leaders, really need to make the case that the administration is dishonest, otherwise we call it honest by default.

Why ever expose the Administration's fraud and corruption? It's exactly what the Republican's say that we're going to do. They do something underhanded and they tell the world: watch the Traitor Democrat are going to go spouting off in support of the enemy by suggesting that we-- the good-hearted, sensible, militarily astute Republicans-- are politically manipulating events!!!

And so we are duly outraged, and some person always comes here and starts chastizing DUers... YOU'RE PLAYING INTO THEIR HANDS!!! WHEN YOU ALL SAY THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE USING TERROR TO MANIPULATE THE PEOPLE-- IT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE REPUBLICANS SAID YOU WERE GOING TO SAY!!! YOU LOOK LIKE HYSTERICAL IDIOTS!!! YOU SHOULD JUST.....

Just what? Give them the benefit of the doubt? Agree with them? Give them a pass. Say "well, at least it may have really been a threat this time, go ahead and use it to your political advantage."?

Looking good for easily manipulated moderates is not the solution to our problems. They own the media. They own the powers of persuasion. Worrying about "how we look" to conservatives is a waste of time.

NONE of this terrorist crap is real. September 11 wasn't, the London bombings last year weren't, Richard Reid wasn't, and none of these "busts" are.

Take your head out of your ass and wake up to reality.

Why? BECAUSE IT'S BULLSHIT!

This is not for real, period. Maybe the suspects are, maybe not. That's immaterial. Shutting down all the news networks, restructuring all the flying regulations, The Fucktard-in-Chief giving his "Be afraid and keep shopping Wal-Mart" speech yesterday - NOT ONE of these things was warranted in the slightest by the way things went down. NOT A ONE!

Of course this is all complete bullshit!

oh--but you must trust jolly old Britain, surely THEY wouldn't deceive us like our president, blair's master does would they?

hour by hour this bullshit story has fallen apart like an old sack.

is that people still do rely too much on manufactured, corporate media to tell them what is true.

When will they ever learn?

These are the essential points that are getting lost in far too many places. True or not about the terrorists (and I can assume it's true) The facts (or non-facts) surrounding the case show a clear intent to USE the event for political purposes. The response to the event show a clear distain for basic freedoms. And NOTHING the US government has done this week has made us safer...it's just ratcheted up the climate of fear and created a distracting public spectacle to move attention away from the beating republicans are taking from voter backlash.

This is theater...regardless of if what happened in the UK was real...what followed has been illusion.

I'm not saying that terrorism isn't real, people. I'm saying that the media orgasm over all this is manipulation - and that by definition is a conspiracy.

You put that so well! THANK YOU!

As soon as blogger lets me republish (its being retarded at the moment and wont let me add new posts), but this has to be posted everywhere! NOMINATED!

but I dont have enough posts - how many posts do I need before I can reccomend a topic for Greatest Page?

Nowhere in your rant did I see any conspiracy stated or described.

Enlighten us.

Which they did.

How is that a conspiracy?

The lasting impression from the story as it was presented yesterday was that there was a plot which was almost ready to happen, as if they were minutes away from blowing up planes. That is simply not true. Nor is it true that there was "cooperation" between the US and Britain. And this event was also used by this administration as a political cudgel.

The original event did not have to be faked for this to be a conspiracy. This has been used cynically to distract the public's attention and to spread fear. It isn't a conspiracy because it's hidden. It's a conspiracy because it's dishonest.

My mom was frantic until I called last night to let her know that my flight had landed. And it didn't help that we were 4 hours late due to late planes and really bad weather, nothing to do with the news of the day. As for me, being a weekly flyer, I just took it in stride and so did most everyone else. I'm not looking forward to early Monday morning though. :yoiks:

The bushies are using the Brits/Pakis' intel to their advantage. The media occasionally mention how this event is a U.S. success, and proves that bush is continuing to keep the U.S. safe?! What part did the U.S. have in this intel info, none that has been reported.

The question is asked on our paid media if We would would have uncovered this type movement in the U.S. and they All claim we have people in place to accomplish what the Brits & Pakis' have. Hummm?

Everytime a big time Operative of the Terrorist is snatched the U.S. somehow claims Victory. Since bush takes credit for the capture of most of the No. 1 bad guys, why are there never any details? My guess is that someone else performed the intel that got those guys, not our CIA, wire taps, etc. Why did the U.S. not know of these happenings until days (?) week (?) ago? Do the British not trust the U.S. to keep quiet? Gawd the questions.

If the Democratic party doesn't get on these points we are doomed I tell you, doomed!

attention away from their filthy efforts to protect themselves from being prosecuted for war crimes.
Transparent as glass.

That was pretty fast !

how the Lamont election helps the terrorists.

Yet nobody accuses Cheney of tin foil hat wearing.

the info was massaged by republicans in yet another sick play for political gain for that matter k&r

this happened, because some RW politician (didn't hear who) assured Hannity with a smile that he "didn't have anything to worry about" regarding the upcoming elections. I didn't hear it, but Thom was convinced that it was because they had something planned out. now we know what it is...at least I HOPE this is all there is, and that there isn't something else coming...

I think they have worse planned.

:tinfoilhat:


:thumbsup:

calling it an obvious political ploy by Blair/Bush at least in how the media are totally blowing it out of proportion.

I kept my mouth shut, let them do all the talking, I just smiled inside.

Snooze Alert! :boring:

Okay, but, maybe some terrorists had a big plan to do what they predictably, always do , terrorize air traffic.

Today I heard on the news, that terrorists stick to what they know works best...that means air travel-type-terrorism.
Everyone already knows that terrorists target air-travel. So we are to assume that terrorists are dumbasses who just do the same ol' same ol' over and and over again.

I'm sorry, but, any smart terrorist would reach into their bag-o-tricks for different tactics. I realize that anyone who thinks that 72 virgins will materialize after suicide bombing probably isn't above 100 IQ. But still....terrorists can't all be stuck on one thing, can they? Airline travel, I mean, LOL.

:applause: :woohoo:

:eyes:

years.

And the media gobbles it up like it was hotcakes.

Well, at least they aren't bashing Mel 24 hours around the clock anymore.

Sure, as the facts come out, this most recent terror plot was still in the planning stages and the media is hyping it. But if we had busted up the 9/11 plot on 9/10 would it seem very different. All we would know was that they had taken flights before and taken some seemingly inadequate flight classes. Who among us would have believed that wielding box cutters could have brought the WTC center down.

I ask sincerely because this troubles me -- how am I to tell what is truly busted terror plot and what is hype?

The Great Toothpaste Grab was total bullshit. The perps hadn't even bought their tickets yet, fer chrissakes!

But, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Had 9/11 been stopped, yes it would look like this. That's the point. It wasn't stopped, and they're using it right now to make this seem much worse than it is.

...are those who believe Bushco on ANYTHING.

US 'let Taleban men escape'

FROM JAMES BONE IN NEW YORK

Times of London
MONDAY JANUARY 21 2002

THE United States secretly approved rescue flights by Pakistan into Kunduz that let Taleban leaders and al-Qaeda fighters escape from the besieged northern Afghan city before its fall last year, New Yorker magazine reports today.
US intelligence officials and military officers said that the Bush Administration approved the flights and ordered US Central Command to set up a special air corridor to ensure their safety to allow evacuation of Pakistani soldiers and intelligence men stranded by Northern Alliance victories.

“What was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus,” the magazine reports.

One senior US defence adviser said: “Everyone brought their friends with them. You’re not going to leave them behind to get their throats cut.”

Mysterious flights into Kunduz were reported by Northern Alliance officials in mid-November, but US and Pakistani officials denied an evacuation was under way.

Seymour Hersh, who wrote the report, said that President Musharraf of Pakistan won US support for the rescue by arguing that losing the men would risk his political survival.


Don't take those tinfoil hats off just yet.