The Victoria Taft Show is all over this story. Listen 5-8pm Pacific. Stream here.
Looks as if Al Qaeda has grown more sophisticated since its Operation Bojinka plot went awry in the 1990's. Oh look, the NYT's has had a recovered memory about Al Qaeda and Operation Bojinka here.
And yet, as the Howard Deaniacs who backed Ned Lamont said on Tuesday "Bring our troops home!" Who's using the war as a political ploy to the detriment of our country again?
I'm curious, how long will it be till Howard Dean or someone of his ilk suggest the US is overblowing this episode for political gain?
Here's what terrorism researcher, frequent guest on the Victoria Taft show, Tom Joscelyn says about the plot uncovered today.
(1) Pakistani Intelligence helped? The London Times is reporting that Pakistani Intelligence help thwart the plot. The Times also passes along this nugget from Pakistan:
Today Pakistani security forces Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, leader of the outlawed Islamic militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, (LeT) under house arrest. The largest of the separatist groups fighting the Indian forces in Kashmir, the LeT has also been blamed by Indian authorities for last month's train bombings in Bombay which killed more than 200 people.
(2) Liquid explosives. There are a number of reports, including this one from the AP, saying that the plotters wanted to use liquid explosives in their carry-on luggage to blow up the planes. It is worth noting, as some reports do, that this was the Ramzi Yousef's modus operandi in the mid-1990s. Yousef, whose uncle KSM orchestrated 9/11, was plotting to blow up a dozen aircraft in mid air when he was arrested. Yousef had wanted to use liquid-based explosives mixed on board the aircraft.
Counterterrorism Blog sums up the President's Comments this morning:
President Bush at 11:50 am ET: He said that the recent arrests are a "stark reminder" that we are a nation at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to hurt us. He thanked Tony Blair and UK officials for busting the plot and officials in washington and around country for excellent cooperation between the UK and the US and within our government. He said, "We are safer than we were prior to 9/11," but we're obviously not completely safe because people still plot against us. "It's a mistake to believe there is no threat aginst the United States."
Thursday, August 10, 2006
AMERICA SLEEPS (Connecticut), TERRORISTS PLOT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Who believes there is no threat against the United States?
If after 9/11 the administration had gone after Al Quaeda and only Al Quaeda, rebuilt Afghanistan instead of leaving it in a mess and stayed the course we would have been safer than we are today.
Instead, they invaded Afghanistan, then promptly diverted the troops and money they would need to find Bin Laden and rebuild Afghanistan over to Iraq. Five years later Bin Laden remains at large. We are paying the price.
I put this remark on Robin's blog spot: It is a good thing that they were caught in England and not in the U.S. Had they been caught here, the American-In-Name-Only Civil Liberties Union would have been yelling to release these guys because their "rights" were being violated.
Scottie -
How so? Please explain what the ACLU would say and why they would say it.
Specifically, as in regards to this case (and this case only). What would their words be?
Please enlighten me.
And, of course, loyalingrate is 100% right.
Loyalingrate does not know his butt from a hole in the ground! Armchair Generals know very little about real warfare.
There are still troops in Afghanistan, always have been since we went there. All the troops in the world chasing Osama won't catch him in the mountainous region he chose to hide out in provided he is still alive.
As seen with Zarqawi, catching Osama would not stop terrorism anyways. He is a mere figurehead and even dead, others step in. This is not a battle against one man; it's a battle against a misled and brutal ideology.
Personally, I just wish the left could make up its mind. There is no terrorist threat, some say. Yet, we are not safer today than we were before 9-11?
These misled Muslims have been attacking and killing people for centuries, it's not new. It's long past due for the west to stand against them, though.
If you think "cut and run," excuse me, "redeployment" is the answer, you are dead wrong. If you think negotiation is the answer, you are dead wrong. These terrorists desire nothing from us, except our death, both liberal and conservative. It's death or subjugation under their control, as far as they are concerned.
You all complain Osama hasn't been caught. How long did it take to find the Olympic Bomber, right here in our own country? How long did it take to find the BLT Killer in Wichita Kansas? The unibomber?
Once caught, even though they were in custody, jailed or executed, crime did not stop. Capturing Osama or even killing him will not stop terrorism either. Only killing as many of them as possible and strengthening those they have under their control will lessen them and their tactics enough for the West to breath easier for a bit.
Osama has been fighting us now for about 16 years. Bush has only been in office 6. Previous administrations did nothing about him, but the left demands Bush do it now?
The Battle in Iraq is staying the course. This War on Terror isn't against a single person, it's against an ideology that needs destroyed as much as humanly possible.
Neville Chamberlain found out the hard way, at the cost of many of his countrymen’s lives, that you cannot negotiate with evil, nor can you appease it. You can only fight it and destroy it.
As Winston Churchill once said, "an appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile, hoping it eats him last." That is as an accurate description of the anti-war left there is, I think.
Lew, as the fifth anniversary of the "War on Terror" comes around your excuses for no victory are not acceptable.
To be "strong on national security" does not mean supporting the misconceived and incompetently executed policies of the Bush administration. American security in years to come will depend on undoing this government's grave mistakes, which have weakened this country's military posture and undermined support for us around the world. Terrorism experts across the spectrum, from conservative Republican to liberal Democrat, agree that the "struggle against violent extremism" has suffered from the foolish decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
The best weapon we have against the Islamic extremists in the long haul is the soft power of modern culture - its comforts, its freedoms and, well, it's enlightenment. Modernization is appealing, and will win, if given half chance. But if by our clumsy, aggressive behavior we cause moderate, ordinary Muslims to confuse modernization with American aggression, with torture, with greed for oil, and with uncritical support for Greater Israel, then by that behavior we deprive ourselves of our greatest strategic advantage.
The right policy after 9/11 was to pursue the actual terrorists to the ends of the earth, but at the same time to have the nerve and maturity to do our best to avoid actions that would alienate the moderates and young people who would otherwise find modernity appealing. Bush of course did exactly the opposite.
Going to war in Iraq was NOT BEING STRONG ON NATIONAL DEFENSE OR ANTI TERRORISM. Iraq was a huge strategic blunder for which the Republican party must be held accountable. And the pity of it is that it is but the greatest of many blunders, misdeeds, and outright crimes which have weakened us. Iraq is a mess, Afganistan is a mess, Palestine, Lebanon, and Israel are a mess, and domestically the response to Katrina, the decimation of the National Guard, energy non-policy etc. Yet, Republicans keep spouting about how weak Democrats are. It is a lie that must be confronted aggressively by credible Democratic and Independent and yes, even Republican leaders such as Chuck Hagel. I want to hear from the retired military.
The fundamental argument of the propagandists like Lew is that opposition to the war in Iraq represents an obsession of the far-left fringe, and that the Democrats will be destroyed by any attempt to extricate our troops from the quicksand. That claim is easily refuted by every reputable survey of public opinion over the past year. Support for the Bush administration’s conduct of the war, and for the President himself, has been declining steadily, in fact, since the end of 2004. And every anchorperson, pundit and squawking head seeking to suggest otherwise is either inexcusably ignorant or purposely lying.
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the
Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.
Once again, 4 armchair generals chime in with little or no knowledge of what they talk about. Appeasement and negotiations with terrorists is a pipe dream of the left.
Until you wake up and realize that money, comforts and other western amenities mean nothing to these people, you will keep yourselves deluded.
This is not a video game where you click a mouse and kill your enemy. This is a battle unlike any other we have had to face. It is a serious delusion to think they will simply leave us alone if we leave them alone or that they can be bought off.
They already have the money to buy the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment." Modernization is appealing to us, but not to them. There is no tolerance in them other than for their delusion of Allah is giving them the entire planet. Whether you realize it or not, it is those very that they hate the most!
It is a complete delusion of the left to think that offering them the very things they despise is the way to win.
Polls matter little in this "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment," battle. As can be witnessed on this board, many are deluded as to what and who we are fighting and with the politicization of the War on Terror for a losing party to use to regain power, most haven't a clue. Truth finds little regard when it comes to the anti-war left.
Iraq is a very necessary part of the overall War on Terror given that virtually the entire world said there were WMDs still there. However, in the six month long rush to war, they were obviously spirited away, as stated by many who were there before we went in. Would you like to have on your conscience that you did nothing to stop them from possibly falling into the hands of terrorists?
As we have seen right here, the claims have been they were never there. Yet, when over 500 canisters were revealed to have been found, the left comes in with "we knew all about them." They weren't the ones sought after. Which way is it? Where did the rest go? How could the entire world say and believe they were there, yet they are gone once we got there, six months later? Doesn't take a rock scientist to figure that out.
Still, WMDs were but one reason to invade Iraq.
Back to your plans for appeasement. You say the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment," are the best weapons? Think again and look at these two High Schoolers as well as the 24 arrested recently in London. They had all that at their disposal and yet, were willing to sacrifice it all for a deluded ideology of power and glory.
Being realistic about who and what were fighting is propaganda, it's an honest assessment of the dangers were now face. Sadly, even if we lose a couple large cities due to terrorist attacks, some on the left will still believe all we need do is join hands and sing Kumbaya.
Sorry, but the song doesn't translate into the language of terrorists. Nor is the war a Democrat or Republican war. It's a battle for the survival of our way of life.
iknow: All you have to do is look at their record of going against anything and everything that is good for this country. That should be self-explanatory for even an ultra-liberal.
As for what they would say specifically, I do not know. I am not an attorney nor do I pretend to be one. I am just a retired trucker who is also a conservative who does not like what the liberals in this country are doing to it. For an excellent insight into what your fellow liberals really are, read the Letters to the Editor in this morning's Columbian. The writer nailed the liberals dead on.
Other than Lew's posts, I see nothing on this blog about appeasement. What is he talking about? Since when is criticism of the Bush incompetent handling of the War on Terror, appeasement?
It could be argued that the failure to capture Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as well as opening Iraq to terrorists appeases Al Qaeda.
This morning on CNN, former 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer argued that the recent terror plot in Britain illustrated why we need to direct resources from Iraq to the global terrorist threat. Roemer said, "It's very important that we don't put all our intelligence and military resources in Iraq and take our eye off the ball in other places in the world."
He also emphasized that "it's very important that we capture Osama Bin Laden" because Bin Laden is producing "CNN quality tapes" and "communicating with hundreds of millions of potential jihadist and trying to get them to sign up."
However, this guy is a Democrat, and therefore not to be believed.
"It's very important that we don't put all our intelligence and military resources in Iraq and take our eye off the ball in other places in the world."
It appears to me that is the drive-by leftstream alphabet media mostly doing this. As I said, we do have troops in Afghanistan and other areas.
Iraq is not the only area this war is being fought in. It's just another battle that is receiving the bulk of the attention.
Democrat, Republican, doesn't matter. Being a former 911 commissioner doesn't give one an opinion any better than another. We all have opinions and my guess is the ones that have been granted stars on their shoulders and entrusted to lead Armies might possibly have a little knowledge of what they are doing.
While capturing Bin Ladin would be a big boost to moral, it would not end the War on Terror. Nor should his capture be the central front of this war, while thousands of other active terrorists actually setting off suicide bombs and other acts of terror go ignored.
Case in point, imagine WW2 if we had ignored both the Armies and Navies of Germany and Japan and just sought Hitler or Tojo only. My bet is would have gotten a bit messy.
However, since so many on the left keep up the cry of capturing Bin Ladin now, I propose the left form their own Get Bin Ladin unit and let's see how fast you capture him.
Be sure to keep the New York Times informed of your actions so they can warn him if you ever do get close.
It's easy play Armchair General when you aren't willing to lift a finger yourself.
A perfect example of the lefties' Alsheimers memory is the fishwrap's headline alluding to a "new threat" from terrorists....neither a new threat nor a new method (foiled in the mid-nineties in the Pacific)....lew, and scottiebill, remember that the lefties post under multiple names to "show" support and as a pretense of greater numbers. Hopefully he/she is a paid employee of the DNC, since looking so redundantly foolish, Anti-American and ignorant should at least be compensated.
Bear: You're right. Hopefully he or she is employed by the DNC so that he/she will be compensated.
Hopefully the lefties will get what's coming to them. Obscurity would be a good place to start.
Just when you think these twisted terrorists couldn't get much worse, they do just that;
Hunt on for baby bombers
By JOHN KAY
Chief Reporter
and SIMON HUGHES
HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.
Security sources confirmed last night that alleged “baby bombers” were among those arrested over the plot to massacre thousands by downing transatlantic flights.
Those being quizzed included a husband and wife with a six-month-old infant.
The discovery prompted fears that there were fanatical mothers in secret al-Qaeda cells in Britain ready to become suicide bombers — and to die with their tots in their arms.
And it emerged as the reason why women at airports were ordered to drink from their babies’ bottles before being allowed to board flights during last week’s massive alert.
Rest of the story
Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."
Who said the above? Why it's that old leftie George Will, August 15, 2006, Washington Post.
Loyal, I’m impressed. I never expected you to be a fan of George Will.
However, I feel compelled to point out to you that he, like us, writes his opinion and is not responsible for conducting any wars or law enforcement or even intelligence.
That being said, I have to disagree with his opinion this time. So much for lock-step conservatives, huh?
While even I will agree that Kerry had a point, may I point out to you that the Bush Administration is indeed using intelligence as well as law enforcement, when they aren’t being hamstrung by whiners on the left and the ACLU.
Don’t forget, the intelligence and law enforcement agents he had available were passed on by the previous administration.
During the 90s, after the first World Trade Center attack, the previous administration treated as a law enforcement matter. Some terrorist were indicted, tried convicted and sentenced. At least one, Abdul Rahman Yasin, disappeared to Iraq and who knows where just prior to the invasion. Another, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, was deported to Jordan, tried and acquitted there. He remains a free man in Saudi Arabia, last I heard.
Since that attack, several others have happened against American interests overseas:
Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993
Attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995
Attack on U.S. Embassy in Moscow, September 13, 1995
Saudi Military Installation Attack, November 13, 1995
Athens Embassy Attack, February 15, 1996
Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997
Murder of U.S. Businessmen in Pakistan, November 12, 1997
Somali Hostage-takings, April 15, 1998
U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998
Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000
Manila Bombing, December 30, 2000
Add to this the fiasco in Somalia in 1993, which had started as a Humanitarian effort only under the first Bush Administration and ballooned into U.N. controlled war against Aideed under the Clinton Administration that led to the “Black Hawk Down” incident and I think you can see the effectiveness of Kerry’s “point.” It also prompted Bin Laden, in his 1996 Declaration of War against the U.S. to state, "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”
That is the legacy of making the War on Terror a Law Enforcement matter primarily.
I will agree that it takes Intelligence, Law Enforcement and Military Actions in this War on Terror. I will also state that this is all taking place as we discuss this, mostly unknown to us.
If your position is that only Law Enforcement will win this war, I hope you will encourage Mayor Tom Potter to ask Bush to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan and let Mayor Potter send in a SWAT team from the Portland PD to find and apprehend Osama Bin laden.
That should scare the pants off of the Taliban.
Keep reading Conservative writers. Hopefully, some truth about the world will sink in.
My position is that Kerry was ridiculed (by the Cheney administration, among others) during the months leading up to the election for saying that combatting terrorism requires a 'law enforcement' approach.
But the recently foiled bomb plot uncovered in England clearly illustrates exactly that.
There's still going to be a place for good ol' munitions and infantry, but it's probably not going to be the main theater.
Yes, Loyal, but you seem you think that Bush is not also using some Law Enforcement as well.
This is a multifaceted war, like most others have been. Just because we don't hear of what is going on behind the scenes (for good reason) doesn't mean it isn't happening.
What I gleaned from Kerry's comment is that it would be more of a law enforcement issue than a Military issue. In our country, yes. But to route the bad guys overseas, primarily in the Middle East, it will take our Brave Military.
Kerry's comment came across to me as pure politicization, something they are trying to say the right is doing.
Post a Comment