Explosives-Packed Car Defused in London

[Lostlover]

Not quite the case. Blair was re-elected but with a minority of the votes cast. This is due to Britain's multi-party system and constituency based parliament. Labour won a majority of the seats but in most constituencies, more votes were cast against the winning party than for it (they were just split between other parties).

Also, because Blair had lied about the reasons for going to war in the first place but had been believed by the other main parties, who therefore supported the war, there was little in the way of opposition to actually vote for for those of us who were against the war. That and the fact that the main opposition party (conservative) were still widely remembered and unpopular thanks to the Thatcher/Major years, and , the war aside, Blair's domestic record was relatively good and popular.

You said it there. That's all I need to highlight.

Can't have it both ways.

You either support the war and the politicians that pushed it or you don't.

And it's not really a lie when most countries believed Saddam did have some type of weapons program. When does faulty intelligence become a "lie"?

 

[Lostlover]

show the documentation for the specious claims regarding muslims or just stop making them

period

you dont get a free pass on disemminating your hate here

you never will

... You have to be kidding me...

So now it's Christians making these bombs in London?

I'm not going to be PC with terrorism. Go to an Al-Qaeda message board if you want this sugar coated.

Extremist Muslims are doing this. Not Christians or Buddhists.

Get real.

 

[RandomAccess]

What is sad is the inability to think. the post i placed did not indicate that any one idea was the truth. The quote above is from the article I posted ealier around 3 when I got home. It was the first I had heard of it and I ask questions in the thread. Now I realize for some ya cant exist without making yourself feel better in a discussion but please sweet pea try and keep it adult.

I think if you will go back and stop playing piece meal you will read the many alternatives that are located in that post.



~From the AP report.

Finally sunshine no suspects have been indentified or even alluded to by the authorities. The sophistication suggest organized terror of some sort but there is absolutely no evidence of either. SO theories and supositions still can have some weight until the investigation is complete.

Why is that such a sticking point with you? Is it so far fetched in your so well ordered world that for you it is impossible for Fundamentalist to desire to inflict a wound to send a message and at the same time feel less responsibility since it is homosexuals that they blow up? Fundamentalist Islamics dont exactly like us faggots, now do they?

The things we do know are that the bombs were streetside where large crowds were expected and they were set to be triggered with a cell phone. Now the day before a big event is when you would park to ensure you get your location. The police FOIL part comes down to sloppy work by the executers of this plan. The third tier.

One car either was attempted to be blown and went puff or it had materials mix which caused a smoke that resulted in medical techs reporting the vehicle. The resultant search turned up another vehicle which had already been towed because of illegal parking. It would have blown up the impound lot. SO two sloppy errors result in the police being super sleuths. Well, Bullshit.

The only warm fuzzy I get from this is that we have caught a plethera of bungling terror attempts over the last few years. SO it begs the question have we pushed to the point training is difficult so the work is sloppy or is it simply Al Murph-ias Law acting against terror plotters?

In the end you and me may never know.

P.S. the laugh out loud was sarcastic because I doubt anyone making money off that Pride celebration would give two shits to say it is not related even if they have no evidence for or against that theory. They will do so simply to make money. Now if no suspects are identified, how can you lean upon the statement that the met police said nothing indicates a attack on gays, yet nothing contradicts that theory either since, um no one is a suspect.

Think like spock sweety.

Now why, on earth, was this turned into a personal attack? You're way off base, and way outta line here, Bucko. I posted a comment, you made a short reply, I corrected you, and you went-off on this diatribe? Someone piss in your Wheeties?

I posted that police and organizers did not think the attempted bombing was aimed at London Pride. You replied that 365Gay reported otherwise. I pointed-out that 365Gay, indeed, hadn't. Now, where's there any failed logic here? I think it was with your post. . . not mine.

Also, it's "you and I may never know" not "you and me may never know..."

PS. There was nothing worth laughing at. Nothing. It's very serious business, although I understand some self-hating war mongers may think otherwise.

Think like you understand English "sweety."

 

[Centexfarmer]

Have y'all got this thing sorted out yet?

 

[Lostlover]

Have y'all got this thing sorted out yet?

We're tryin' to .

 

[letme]

Just a short while ago a jeep crashed into the Glasgow airport in England. The car was on fire and driving at a high rate of speed. The Jeep did not enter the the building,however.

But G.A. don't worry your little head none. This is a non-US-non-event It is just an every day thing I guess,like riding a bike.

Ya I know the spin will soon come out by the GOP,in an effort to keep Bush from being blamed. They will say it was just another drunk Kennedy out for a drive,his bottle of scotch spilled,and a cigar set the jeep ablaze. hmmm would a Kennedy lower themselfs to drive a red-necked Jeep ?

 

[letme]

"Your lack of political sophistication and maturity makes it worthless to reply to you sometimes."

Hello Kettle,,,is your mirror cracked ?

 

[unclaimedblessing]

I'll be the first to admit I don't have instant nor total recall.
If the news articles are remembered correctly:
It was ordinary Pakistani civilians who alerted UK authorities about those outgoing sabotaged planes in London.
It was firemen who noticed the suspicious cars in London.
It was JFK employees who noticed peculiarities in the luggage areas recently.
It was a pizza delivery guy who alerted authorities about the Ft Dix debacle.
It was local authorities that uncovered the Toronto caper.
For for all the rhetoric from Bush (and Blair) about terrorism and the creation of Homeland Security, basically it's still the "little" guys who have uncovered or sabotaged terrorist plots.
Our leadership can take little or no credit for thwarted terrorist attempts despite their patriotic, insincere babble.

 

[Lostlover]

I'll be the first to admit I don't have instant nor total recall.
If the news articles are remembered correctly:
It was ordinary Pakistani civilians who alerted UK authorities about those outgoing sabotaged planes in London.
It was firemen who noticed the suspicious cars in London.
It was JFK employees who noticed peculiarities in the luggage areas recently.
It was a pizza delivery guy who alerted authorities about the Ft Dix debacle.
It was local authorities that uncovered the Toronto caper.
For for all the rhetoric from Bush (and Blair) about terrorism and the creation of Homeland Security, basically it's still the "little" guys who have uncovered or sabotaged terrorist plots.
Our leadership can take little or no credit for thwarted terrorist attempts despite their patriotic, insincere babble.

According to some reports it was also Pakistani men doing the stuff yesterday and today.

Since I don't claim to see intelligence reports or know everything that the CIA or FBI knows, I can't say with full certainty that this admin hasn't done a lot in stopping terror attacks in the homeland....

BUT

I do know they're fanning the flames with their incompetency (Iraq) outside of America. Remember the "we're fighting them there so we won't fight them here" statements Bush made?

Complete hogwash.

 

[Andreus]

... You have to be kidding me...

So now it's Christians making these bombs in London?

I'm not going to be PC with terrorism. Go to an Al-Qaeda message board if you want this sugar coated.

Extremist Muslims are doing this. Not Christians or Buddhists.

Get real.

show the proof

dont guess


dont tell me what you think is probable

show us the proof for these things or stiop makiung the ridiculous claims

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Lostlover, I seriously doubt that any of our membership have access to confidential reports.
Do you beleive if Bush and his henchmen have done anything significant in combatting terrorism those actions wouldn't be the buzz words in their speeches?
They would be taking full credit and praising themselves for the world to see.

 

[levenshulme31]

Originally Posted by me (Lostlover's highlighting)
Not quite the case. Blair was re-elected but with a minority of the votes cast. This is due to Britain's multi-party system and constituency based parliament. Labour won a majority of the seats but in most constituencies, more votes were cast against the winning party than for it (they were just split between other parties).

Also, because Blair had lied about the reasons for going to war in the first place but had been believed by the other main parties, who therefore supported the war, there was little in the way of opposition to actually vote for for those of us who were against the war. That and the fact that the main opposition party (conservative) were still widely remembered and unpopular thanks to the Thatcher/Major years, and , the war aside, Blair's domestic record was relatively good and popular.

You said it there. That's all I need to highlight.

Can't have it both ways.

You either support the war and the politicians that pushed it or you don't.

And it's not really a lie when most countries believed Saddam did have some type of weapons program. When does faulty intelligence become a "lie"?

It appears to be you who wants it both ways. Much as you believe the highlighted part of the paragraph is the only relevant bit, you are wrong. Read the rest of what I wrote. In fact, I'll clarify it a bit further. Blair was the leader of the Labour party. The Labour party won a majority of the 650 parliamentary seats, often with less than 50% of the votes cast in each particular constituency, but with the highest single share of the vote. (eg you could have a labour candidate with 22000 votes, a tory with 21000 and a liberal with 20000 - the Labour candidate wins the seat despite 41000 votes against him - Hope that's simplified enough for you or do I need to use crayons?)

In Blair's constituency (one of the safest, traditionally Labour seats in the country), Blair actually got 58.9% of the 41,475 votes cast for that particular seat. So, in reality, only 24,421 people voted directly for Blair.

Personally I voted for Labour in 1997 and against Labour in the 2 subsequent general elections - due mainly to my opposition to the Iraq war. All three times, the Labour candidate won.

As for your assertion that the faulty intelligence was errors rather than lies, what twaddle.

Blair stated in Parliament that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which could be used within 45 minutes and could target British forces based in Cyprus (thereby creating a direct threat to Britain). He bandied about the infamous sexed up dodgy dossier on Saddam's weapons which turned out to be copied from some grad student's 10 year old thesis. I would argue that both of these constitute outright lies, designed to get the British people to support Blair's plans to send our troops to Iraq to support Bush's war (which is widely believed to have been on the cards well before 9/11).

 

[levenshulme31]

The 'carbomb' at Glasgow airport is being linked by police to the two devices found in London. Fortunately no-one appears to have been harmed apart from the two fuckknuckles in the Jeep.

 

[Lostlover]

show the proof

dont guess


dont tell me what you think is probable

show us the proof for these things or stiop makiung the ridiculous claims

What have I said that is ridiculous?

Remember my Pakistan comment yesterday? That comment was made before the nationalities were even published.

Do you think I just spun the globe on my desk and placed my finger on Pakistan when I guessed the country of origin of the bombers?

 

[Lostlover]

Lostlover, I seriously doubt that any of our membership have access to confidential reports.
Do you beleive if Bush and his henchmen have done anything significant in combatting terrorism those actions wouldn't be the buzz words in their speeches?
They would be taking full credit and praising themselves for the world to see.

That's all Cheney ever does. Drops this hints about thwarted terrorist attacks in very vague terms. I wish I did know more but the fact that there hasn't been an attack in 6 years speaks volumes. Give them their credit their at least.

Britain, on the other hand, seems like it is taking shit more often than we are and we have a much bigger immigrant population than they do.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I'd like to think that all these decreased "rights" are actually gaining momentum against would be terrorists.

 

[Andreus]

what are you talking about?

southasians are pakistanis?

i think you need to supply links and proofs or just give it up

this forum is worth more than your posts

dont litter this place with unsubstantiated jiberish

 

[Andreus]

look

this process is simple

post an article with the facts you present or state that they are unsubstantiated opinions

there are no other options

thats the way intelligent discourse works

if you are afraid of facts then that is the most revealing thing about you and your ideas to all of us

 

[Lostlover]

Originally Posted by me (Lostlover's highlighting)
Not quite the case. Blair was re-elected but with a minority of the votes cast. This is due to Britain's multi-party system and constituency based parliament. Labour won a majority of the seats but in most constituencies, more votes were cast against the winning party than for it (they were just split between other parties).

Also, because Blair had lied about the reasons for going to war in the first place but had been believed by the other main parties, who therefore supported the war, there was little in the way of opposition to actually vote for for those of us who were against the war. That and the fact that the main opposition party (conservative) were still widely remembered and unpopular thanks to the Thatcher/Major years, and , the war aside, Blair's domestic record was relatively good and popular.



It appears to be you who wants it both ways. Much as you believe the highlighted part of the paragraph is the only relevant bit, you are wrong. Read the rest of what I wrote. In fact, I'll clarify it a bit further. Blair was the leader of the Labour party. The Labour party won a majority of the 650 parliamentary seats, often with less than 50% of the votes cast in each particular constituency, but with the highest single share of the vote. (eg you could have a labour candidate with 22000 votes, a tory with 21000 and a liberal with 20000 - the Labour candidate wins the seat despite 41000 votes against him - Hope that's simplified enough for you or do I need to use crayons?)

In Blair's constituency (one of the safest, traditionally Labour seats in the country), Blair actually got 58.9% of the 41,475 votes cast for that particular seat. So, in reality, only 24,421 people voted directly for Blair.

Personally I voted for Labour in 1997 and against Labour in the 2 subsequent general elections - due mainly to my opposition to the Iraq war. All three times, the Labour candidate won.

As for your assertion that the faulty intelligence was errors rather than lies, what twaddle.

Blair stated in Parliament that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which could be used within 45 minutes and could target British forces based in Cyprus (thereby creating a direct threat to Britain). He bandied about the infamous sexed up dodgy dossier on Saddam's weapons which turned out to be copied from some grad student's 10 year old thesis. I would argue that both of these constitute outright lies, designed to get the British people to support Blair's plans to send our troops to Iraq to support Bush's war (which is widely believed to have been on the cards well before 9/11).

If he had intelligence then how was it a lie?

Would you want him to go to Baghdad and ask Hussein himself?

Really, if you're so scared about bad intelligence, I think you should make a petition for your country (I assume you're british) to scrap it's intelligence agencies out of fear of having bad intelligence.

When you do that, tell me how far your efforts to scrap intelligence agencies go.

 

[Lostlover]

look

this process is simple

post an article with the facts you present or state that they are unsubstantiated opinions

there are no other options

thats the way intelligent discourse works

if you are afraid of facts then that is the most revealing thing about you and your ideas to all of us

I have read many books that I have suggested here on this forum for people to read. Books by former CIA agents highly critical of the admin and know much more than we'll ever know.

What I have said has been pretty much what they say about the war on terror.

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Andreus]

just list the book titles that are rellevant to this discussion and your comments with exerpts

just list articles

if you arent willing to put the time into the research then just say so and say that your opinions are just unsubstantiated

but to insist that something is factual when it is an opinion is not the way this works