'Plot to blow up planes' foiled

[Dave A]

We had 30 years of this from the IRA. It's nothing new. To be honest, I'm soooooo much more worried about why my last fart smelled so bad than I am about Al Qai'da.

I said something along similar lines on July 7th last year - and let's face it, since then we've had over half a trillion man hours without them harming anyone at all.

Britain isn't scared of you, Al. You barely even register as an itch.

Yes you did, I remember that speech quite well, I also recall a very similar speech making it into the letters page of the Metro newspaper.

Come and have a go if you think your hard enough.

 

[donbenni]

We had 30 years of this from the IRA. It's nothing new. To be honest, I'm soooooo much more worried about why my last fart smelled so bad than I am about Al Qai'da.

I said something along similar lines on July 7th last year - and let's face it, since then we've had over half a trillion man hours without them harming anyone at all.

Britain isn't scared of you, Al. You barely even register as an itch.

I am not quite the right age to remember to hey-days of the IRA (or at least wasn't old enough to worry) but yes i appreciate that terrorism isn't new nor Britain being a target of it.

But i'm certainly feeling terrorised now. Everyone needs to fly at some point and no one wants a coke bottle full of some liquid nitrate substance under their chair ready to blow a metre wide hole in the fuselage and send the plane 'south' several thousand feet.

Doesn't help that they're British citizens. That really bugged me with the July 7th bombings too. This continuous nagging thought that the people most willing to hurt this country are already here, sapping it, just waiting until they're ordered to kill.

I was at least happy to see they're really trying at the airports. The plastic bag thing is just right. My dad raised the point that if you were planning on traveling with any sort of important luggage like a laptop you'd be a bit peeved; I'm not sure being thrown around in the hold for the duration of the flight will do much good to that sort of thing. Fortunately he's not flying anywhere again until late next week so hopefully won't be troubled with that.

 

[Dave A]

I can honestly say that I don't feel threatened right now, hell if another bomb goes off in Manchester there's not much I can do about it. Not much will top having a cousin blown up in Northern Ireland emotionally. The Manchester bombing didn't.

 

[RallyF1]

it's amazing how such news tend to surface every now and then. please take our civil liberties but keep us safe, please pull these stunts every now and then so that we would submit to whatever the goverments ask for. oooh the scary terrorists.
living in fear and under the thumb is what is this all about. wait and see how bush will use this for his advantage...hold on i am watching CNN and that's what he is doing, oh god the irony.....it sickening


N.B. one more thing. something much bigger is going on in the background and this terror alert is being used as a deviation, just sickening. look in deep and you will see things happening in the background of the world news.

 

[donbenni]

N.B. one more thing. something much bigger is going on in the background and this terror alert is being used as a deviation, just sickening. look in deep and you will see things happening in the background of the world news.

Care to share your bullet-proof theory?

 

[wfooshee]

N.B. one more thing. something much bigger is going on in the background and this terror alert is being used as a deviation, just sickening. look in deep and you will see things happening in the background of the world news.

I'm sure that the bright people out there have noticed that "conspiracy theory" plots are always way more complicated than the actual events.

If Al Gore had been president in 2001, 9/11 wouldn't have been a U.S. conspiracy for oil, it would have been a U.S. conspiracy for the environment.

Somehow.

I'm afraid we would also still be trying to decide what, if anything, to do about it.

I will now push the AUP to its limits (the part that says "No personal attacks on other members will be tolerated. If you question someone, it must be done in a reasonable and semi-friendly manner."), saying that anybody that thinks Dubya is sitting in the Oval right now going, "Cool! Something else I can use in a power grab" is absolutely not in the same reality most of us share.

 

[Flerbizky]

If a single bullet goes through the fuselage of an aircraft the cabin is depressurised everyone inside dies, understand?

No they don't. A single bullet through a fuselage doesn't do anything at all (except for a little hissing probably) - Myth Busters debunked that one several hundred years ago...

Explosive placed on a window on the other hand - wasn't nearly as much fun...

 

[magburner]

it's amazing how such news tend to surface every now and then. please take our civil liberties but keep us safe, please pull these stunts every now and then so that we would submit to whatever the goverments ask for. oooh the scary terrorists.
living in fear and under the thumb is what is this all about. wait and see how bush will use this for his advantage...hold on i am watching CNN and that's what he is doing, oh god the irony.....it sickening


N.B. one more thing. something much bigger is going on in the background and this terror alert is being used as a deviation, just sickening. look in deep and you will see things happening in the background of the world news.

Whilst I agree with you in some respects, I think you are way off the mark with some of your 'conspiracy theories', though it doesn't mean that you are wrong either. You talk of of governments taking away our liberties, well thats not the case if you live in the UK. The government here has been defeated on a number of anti-terror laws, and there is still considerable resistance to what the government is trying to impliment. I'm not too worried yet about my 'perceived' loss of civil liberties, though I do wonder where it will all end.

You don't need to look behind the news to see what is really going on, just watch the news, and you will see! Our war on terror is their war on Islam. Admittedly there are extremists out there that want to out-and-out destroy our way of life, with no provocation at all, but there is a very different picture emerging here in the UK. There is growing evidence that our foreign policy and actions in the Middle East are radicalizing the disillusioned Muslim youth of this country. Infact, two of the radicalized 7/7 bombers specifically mentioned that their attacks were due to the war in Iraq. In an ITV news poll conducted some time ago, they found that 16% of British Muslims thought that the 7/7 bombings were justified. Thats what really scares me. The fact that there are British citizens out there that would think that it is acceptable to kill innocent British citizens in revenge for the failed foreign policy of our government.

As a British citizen, I'm angered by Tony Blairs unwavering allegiance/complicity to the war on terror. His actions go against the weight of public opinion here in the UK, and even ministers in his own cabinet have serious doubts over his actions. Maybe the war is justified, but I will always have serious doubts. If he can take the country to war on a lie, who's to say that he won't do it again?

 

[wfooshee]

If he can take the country to war on a lie, who's to say that he won't do it again?

What lie is that?

We were attacked, we called on our allies to help us go after them, and TB is just about the only one left.

Public opinion about whether the war is justified is swayed too easily by "Ooh, it's just too far away, leave them alone they'll leave us alone."

Peace above all. Negotiate. Diplomacy.

They won't leave us alone. If they negotiate, it's in bad faith. There's no recognized entity for diplomacy. Radical muslims believe they have the God-given right - no, the God given responsibility to kill all infidels. They will use whatever means they can discover.

This isn't about the Crusades, it's not about American support for Israel, it's not about oil. It's about cowards hiding in a cave who think with a cave-man tribal mentality that those who are different from them must be eradicated. They are aquiring the technology in this modern age to reach out to us, rather than waiting for us to drift near enough to them.

These guys aren't that far away, either, if you're thinking Iraq, Pakistan, wherever is the other side of the world from Britain. In another thread on the Rumble Strip, I spoke of how Americans drive everywhere, just because everything is so damn far apart here. In that line of thought, Miami to Seattle is a shorter straight-line distance than London to Baghdad, so from our perspective, the Queen's loyal subjects are neighbors to these people!

Our war on terror is their war on Islam.

We have no war on Islam; I'm sure your comment was to mean that their agitators say we do.

 

[magburner]

What lie is that?

Tony blair claimed that Saddam Hussain had chemical/biological/fantastical weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in as little as 45 minutes. To my knowledge, there has still been no proff that Saddam had any WMDs. Here in the UK, we had an exhaustive public enquiry into that claim and it was proved to be false. The intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq was proven to be false. My opposition to the war on terror stems from those falshoods. Anyway, thats history now.

Hey, I'm all for helping our allies, but why does it feel like we are accomplices? what I (and most Britons) objected to was being taken to war on the lie I just mentioned. If Tony had come out with the truth in the first place, instead of creating a myth, I doubt that the opposition would of been so widespread.

As for the terrorists hiding in a cave somewhere, its a little closer to home here in the UK! We have a sizeable Muslim community of millions - 2.7% of our total population (according to the CIA World Factbook). 16% of those think that it is acceptable to kill innocent British civillians. Its easy to say that they are the enemy, but when they make up a sizable proportion of your country, its not so easy to come up with a black and white solution.

I will say this though. The overwhelming majority of British Muslims are totally against any terrorist act, and have lived peacefully in this country for decades. Its the 16% we have to worry about. In the UK, We are now faced with the real threat that there are British-born terrorist scumbags out there that want to destroy our way of life. We seriously need to reconsider our role in the war on terror, and address the mounting problems we have at home - the radicalization of the Muslim youth needs to be addressed urgently!

 

[wfooshee]

To my knowledge, there has still been no proff that Saddam had any WMDs.

Aside from gassing the Kurds after we left Iraq following Desert Storm . . . .


Poor or misinformed intelligence does not constitute lying. Contrived intelligence does, but that hasn't been shown to be the case. We (the U.S.) acted on available information, and said information had a critical time element to it. (Do this before they do that.)

I am not defending the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq, but I will defend the decision to act on it when the belief was that the information was valid and correct. I also believe that the intelligence situation has been handled.

There has also been evidence uncovered in captured documents that Iraqi leadership offered assistance and facilities to the terroist organizations, even if they did not actually participate, and in our declaration of purpose, that is enough to pursue. Granted, these documents were not known prior to the action, so you might argue an "end justifies the means" mentality, but I don't think that's the case. We went in for one reason, the reason turned out to be flawed, but too late, we've done it. Now we've found a truly valid reason, maybe that's awfully convenient, but it's no less applicable.

 

[RallyF1]

Aside from gassing the Kurds after we left Iraq following Desert Storm . . . .


Poor or misinformed intelligence does not constitute lying. Contrived intelligence does, but that hasn't been shown to be the case. We (the U.S.) acted on available information, and said information had a critical time element to it. (Do this before they do that.)

I am not defending the intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq, but I will defend the decision to act on it when the belief was that the information was valid and correct. I also believe that the intelligence situation has been handled.

There has also been evidence uncovered in captured documents that Iraqi leadership offered assistance and facilities to the terroist organizations, even if they did not actually participate, and in our declaration of purpose, that is enough to pursue. Granted, these documents were not known prior to the action, so you might argue an "end justifies the means" mentality, but I don't think that's the case. We went in for one reason, the reason turned out to be flawed, but too late, we've done it. Now we've found a truly valid reason, maybe that's awfully convenient, but it's no less applicable.

kurds got killed i am not arguing with that, but kurds also were being hunted by the turkish goverment and they did it using helicopters given to them by the united states how come we don't go after turkey. oh wait a minute turkey is an ally of the u.s. on the so called war on terror, go back in the news and you will see that turkish forces chased the kurds into iraq and massacred them and no one said a word about it.
and the only reason the u.s. was so confident that saddam has dirty bombs or what not is because the U.S. gave them to him and they where sure that they still had them, but alas he does not. the bush administration was so sure of theire claims because in his cabinet there is a man called rumsfeld, yes donald rumsfeld and he is the reason behind those assurances and fake lies that the bush administration was intimidating us the american public with, those assurances come in the form of a hand shake that mister rumsfeld did with saddam hussein during the iraq iran war in which mr. ramsfeld said that saddam hussein is a good man and he backed iraq with weapons to kill the iranians during that war( check the news, they should be archived), these weapons are the same weapons that the bush administration built theire iraq war upon. yes the united states supplied saddam with weapons of W.M.D. to use on iranians. but it turned out as much as saddam is a beast he did not use these weapons during that conflict and that's why this conniving, lying adminstration was so sure of these weapons.

 

[Pebb]

It was all over the news, talk about carnage. However they said the people planning to blow up the planes were British.

 

[DQuaN]

They were British citizens.

They weren't of British decent.

 

[Alex.]

strange that my thread almost exactly the same as this got closed but this didn't. i know a few people abroad who should be comin back this week i wonder when normal service will be resumed

 

[Dave A]

It was closed because we don't need 2 threads on it, and this one was already here.

 

[F1GTR]

strange that my thread almost exactly the same as this got closed but this didn't. i know a few people abroad who should be comin back this week i wonder when normal service will be resumed

It has resumed, but with delays. My dad just arrived from Dubai today, although 1hr late.

 

[Famine]

strange that my thread almost exactly the same as this got closed but this didn't.

Your thread start time: Yesterday, 10:06 AM
This thread start time: Yesterday, 9:23 AM

You know how to use the search function and how to tell the time, surely?

 

[wfooshee]

kurds got killed i am not arguing with that, but kurds also were being hunted by the turkish goverment and they did it using helicopters given to them by the united states how come we don't go after turkey. oh wait a minute turkey is an ally of the u.s. on the so called war on terror, go back in the news and you will see that turkish forces chased the kurds into iraq and massacred them and no one said a word about it.
and the only reason the u.s. was so confident that saddam has dirty bombs or what not is because the U.S. gave them to him and they where sure that they still had them, but alas he does not. the bush administration was so sure of theire claims because in his cabinet there is a man called rumsfeld, yes donald rumsfeld and he is the reason behind those assurances and fake lies that the bush administration was intimidating us the american public with, those assurances come in the form of a hand shake that mister rumsfeld did with saddam hussein during the iraq iran war in which mr. ramsfeld said that saddam hussein is a good man and he backed iraq with weapons to kill the iranians during that war( check the news, they should be archived), these weapons are the same weapons that the bush administration built theire iraq war upon. yes the united states supplied saddam with weapons of W.M.D. to use on iranians. but it turned out as much as saddam is a beast he did not use these weapons during that conflict and that's why this conniving, lying adminstration was so sure of these weapons.

We supported Iraq in their war with Iran because we'd given the deposed shah sanctuary, and believed the revolutionary government would be overthrown and the shah restored. We supported the effort with conventional arms. There has NEVER been a case of the U.S. providing WMDs to any nation anywhere on earth, even allies. We may stock them at our bases in an allied nation, but that nation has no access to them.

Turkey never used chemical, biological or gas weapons on the kurds. Unfortunately, the Kurds in question were an "invading" force of refugees (if refugees can be a force. . .) that were being turned back. I'm not denying that there is considerable ethnic and religious tension in Turkey, as in the entire Middle East.

I have watched the news. I watched it while it was happening, I don't need to find the archives.

Please keep in mind that the government is not the only source of information, therefore not the only source of "lies." Why do you assume the "news" is any more truthful than anything else you see or hear? There is so little real news on these days. Most of what we see is editorialization or opinion broadcasts.

 

[FoolKiller]

and the only reason the u.s. was so confident that saddam has dirty bombs or what not is because the U.S. gave them to him and they where sure that they still had them, but alas he does not.

Oh criminey! How many tims do I have to link you people back to this!

No Shortage of Chemical Weapons in Iraq thread

We did find the chemical weapons in 2003 but their existence remained classified information until just a few months ago.

There is also the Saddam had Terror Connections thread, which reports on how those same declassified documents reveal that they were aiding terrorist organizations.

You don't need to look behind the news to see what is really going on, just watch the news, and you will see! Our war on terror is their war on Islam.

I hope that you did not mean that America is at war with Islam.

Admittedly there are extremists out there that want to out-and-out destroy our way of life, with no provocation at all, but there is a very different picture emerging here in the UK. There is growing evidence that our foreign policy and actions in the Middle East are radicalizing the disillusioned Muslim youth of this country. Infact, two of the radicalized 7/7 bombers specifically mentioned that their attacks were due to the war in Iraq. In an ITV news poll conducted some time ago, they found that 16% of British Muslims thought that the 7/7 bombings were justified. Thats what really scares me.

And America has white, non-Muslims who think that 9/11 was justified and others that think it was actually done by the government. These radical thoughts were around before the war ever began.

The fact that there are British citizens out there that would think that it is acceptable to kill innocent British citizens in revenge for the failed foreign policy of our government.

As opposed to those that kill American citizens for....? Wait, why was 9/11 done again? Oh yeah, they just hate us.

Any person that falls into this 16% is just as bad as a redneck that wants to beat up all the arabs because he thinks that they are all terrorists. You say he is just a stupid idiot who should know better but you blame a radical muslim on the government. Why?

If he can take the country to war on a lie, who's to say that he won't do it again?

See the top of my post. They were there. Of course that doesn't include multiple UN resolution violations and even an assasination attempt on the leader of another country. If that isn't an act of war then what is?

 

[Famine]

See the top of my post. They were there. Of course that doesn't include multiple UN resolution violations and even an assasination attempt on the leader of another country. If that isn't an act of war then what is?

It's important to separate why the UK went back into Iraq from why the US did.

The justification given to parliament and the British people was that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction - specifically referring to chemical and biological weapons - which could be launched against targets in the west (including Israel) at 45 minutes' notice. This is what's known as "A lie". Backup data for this was plagiarised from an online thesis (and I'm not making this up either).


Had Blair said "Look, we're going to take Saddam down, because he's a bit of a tool and we didn't do it right the first time" (taking the time to blame the Tories, of course), no-one would have had a problem. But the fact remains that, whether or not you think our presence in Iraq is justifiable (I err on the side of thinking it is), the UK's Armed Forces are there based on a lie told to parliament.

 

[wfooshee]

It's important to separate why the UK went back into Iraq from why the US did.

The justification given to parliament and the British people was that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction - specifically referring to chemical and biological weapons - which could be launched against targets in the west (including Israel) at 45 minutes' notice. This is what's known as "A lie". Backup data for this was plagiarised from an online thesis (and I'm not making this up either).


Had Blair said "Look, we're going to take Saddam down, because he's a bit of a tool and we didn't do it right the first time" (taking the time to blame the Tories, of course), no-one would have had a problem. But the fact remains that, whether or not you think our presence in Iraq is justifiable (I err on the side of thinking it is), the UK's Armed Forces are there based on a lie told to parliament.

Why is it important to separate the US reason and the UK reason? It's the same reason. Information at the time led us to believe the devices existed, we went in to clean them out. The information was incorrect, misinformed, misconstrued, perhaps even exaggerated by those providing it. This information is what the leaders of our countries were given to act on. I don't think Blair lied to parliament, any more than I think Bush lied to Congress. There was an intelligence fiasco, but the actions based on the intelligance provided was correct.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's important to separate why the UK went back into Iraq from why the US did.

The justification given to parliament and the British people was that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction - specifically referring to chemical and biological weapons - which could be launched against targets in the west (including Israel) at 45 minutes' notice. This is what's known as "A lie". Backup data for this was plagiarised from an online thesis (and I'm not making this up either).


Had Blair said "Look, we're going to take Saddam down, because he's a bit of a tool and we didn't do it right the first time" (taking the time to blame the Tories, of course), no-one would have had a problem. But the fact remains that, whether or not you think our presence in Iraq is justifiable (I err on the side of thinking it is), the UK's Armed Forces are there based on a lie told to parliament.

Doh. I guess I just get too used to hearing how Bush did lie, Bush is lying, and Bush will lie because that's all he does that I react in that way.


Creates quite an issue when you oppose the war because the dossier given turned out to be made up, but come to find out that the made up issues at least partially turn out to be true, even if the dossier writer didn't know it.

To me it seems like it could cause a person to at least reevaluate their opinion.

 

[Famine]

The information was incorrect, misinformed, misconstrued, perhaps even exaggerated by those providing it. This information is what the leaders of our countries were given to act on. I don't think Blair lied to parliament, any more than I think Bush lied to Congress. There was an intelligence fiasco

I have two minions at work. One of my jobs is to ensure that what they do is right and that the sum total of my area's output is right. If they get something wrong, I get the blame (though if they do something right, I get the credit) as I'm supposed to check to make sure they don't.

Blair is the Prime Minister. That's not "the guy who says whatever the people below him tell him to say". That's "the guy who must make sure that whatever the people below him tell him is correct before he says anything".

but the actions based on the intelligance provided was correct.

That's "the ends justify the means". I'm afraid they don't.

 

[ledhed]

Tony blair claimed that Saddam Hussain had chemical/biological/fantastical weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in as little as 45 minutes. To my knowledge, there has still been no proff that Saddam had any WMDs. Here in the UK, we had an exhaustive public enquiry into that claim and it was proved to be false. The intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq was proven to be false. My opposition to the war on terror stems from those falshoods. Anyway, thats history now.

Hey, I'm all for helping our allies, but why does it feel like we are accomplices? what I (and most Britons) objected to was being taken to war on the lie I just mentioned. If Tony had come out with the truth in the first place, instead of creating a myth, I doubt that the opposition would of been so widespread.

As for the terrorists hiding in a cave somewhere, its a little closer to home here in the UK! We have a sizeable Muslim community of millions - 2.7% of our total population (according to the CIA World Factbook). 16% of those think that it is acceptable to kill innocent British civillians. Its easy to say that they are the enemy, but when they make up a sizable proportion of your country, its not so easy to come up with a black and white solution.

I will say this though. The overwhelming majority of British Muslims are totally against any terrorist act, and have lived peacefully in this country for decades. Its the 16% we have to worry about. In the UK, We are now faced with the real threat that there are British-born terrorist scumbags out there that want to destroy our way of life. We seriously need to reconsider our role in the war on terror, and address the mounting problems we have at home - the radicalization of the Muslim youth needs to be addressed urgently!

I cant speak for Tony ...but this is WHY THE UNITED STATES went after SADDAM..WNDS are apart but not all of the reason...but let the resolution speak for itself.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###

Now you can see why .

 

[wfooshee]

I have two minions at work. One of my jobs is to ensure that what they do is right and that the sum total of my area's output is right. If they get something wrong, I get the blame (though if they do something right, I get the credit) as I'm supposed to check to make sure they don't.

Blair is the Prime Minister. That's not "the guy who says whatever the people below him tell him to say". That's "the guy who must make sure that whatever the people below him tell him is correct before he says anything".

Agreed. Bush took a LOT of heat about the intelligence fiasco, and there was a serious shakeup in the intelligence organization here. The responsibility for the fiasco is his, and he handled it. But his actions, based on the information provided by the proper channels, were correct. In other words, given the belief that such conditions genuinely existed, taking the Iraqi regime down was the correct course of action.

That's "the ends justify the means". I'm afraid they don't.

No, it isn't. If someone said, "I wonder if these things exist, let's go take him out and we'll see," then it turns out to be correct, THAT is "the ends justify the means." If someone says, "We have reliable information corraborated by multiple sources, including defectors, that these things exist," and that person is the person responsible for gathering and verifying such information, then acting on it is simply responsible leadership.

I recognized myself the possibility of arguing "ends and means" in my earlier post, #41.

 

[Famine]

No, it isn't. If someone said, "I wonder if these things exist, let's go take him out and we'll see," then it turns out to be correct, THAT is "the ends justify the means." If someone says, "We have reliable information corraborated by multiple sources, including defectors, that these things exist," and that person is the person responsible for gathering and verifying such information, then acting on it is simply responsible leadership.

I recognized myself the possibility of arguing "ends and means" in my earlier post, #41.

Here's the rub though - if you take action based on "x", but "x" turns out to be false, the action is not justified.

We took action because Saddam had WMDs pointed at us, ready to fire at 45 minutes' notice. This was false, so our action was not justified.

What you're saying is that it's completely okay that Blair lied to us to get our troops deployed - and killed - because the end result - removing Saddam and the Ba'ath party from power - was actually a good thing. I agree, it is a good thing, but it is not completely okay that Blair lied in order to get this result.

Had Blair said "Okay, look. Saddam's a bastard and we're off to take him out before he does any more damage." - no problem at all. That would have been truthful, even if it would have given the Daily Mail's readership palpitations. Hell, even if he'd just said that Saddam had WMDs and, though we were in no danger from them ourselves, we were going to take them off him and destroy them because he's nuts and might use them, that would have at least been true. But he didn't - he claimed that we were in immediate danger from Saddam, because he could launch WMDs against us at 45 minutes' notice. This has never even been close to true, but it was just the emotive edge he needed to get parliament to agree to an operation.

 

[ledhed]

Here's the rub though - if you take action based on "x", but "x" turns out to be false, the action is not justified.

We took action because Saddam had WMDs pointed at us, ready to fire at 45 minutes' notice. This was false, so our action was not justified.

What you're saying is that it's completely okay that Blair lied to us to get our troops deployed - and killed - because the end result - removing Saddam and the Ba'ath party from power - was actually a good thing. I agree, it is a good thing, but it is not completely okay that Blair lied in order to get this result.

Had Blair said "Okay, look. Saddam's a bastard and we're off to take him out before he does any more damage." - no problem at all. That would have been truthful, even if it would have given the Daily Mail's readership palpitations. Hell, even if he'd just said that Saddam had WMDs and, though we were in no danger from them ourselves, we were going to take them off him and destroy them because he's nuts and might use them, that would have at least been true. But he didn't - he claimed that we were in immediate danger from Saddam, because he could launch WMDs against us at 45 minutes' notice. This has never even been close to true, but it was just the emotive edge he needed to get parliament to agree to an operation.

here's the rub...If Tony believed what he said when he went to parliment ...and most of the worlds intelligence operations all did concur , along with the fact Saddam WAS playing hide the salami with the inspectors for ten years...HOW is it a " lie " ?

A lie is a deliberate false statement is it not ?

They seem to have been mistaken and acted on fualty intelligence .

But the fact remains Saddam was a threat...and would be even more of a threat had the status quo been kept up . He had the people with the know how in place , he just needed some time to regroup....he did not get it .

 

[Famine]

here's the rub...If Tony believed what he said when he went to parliment ...and most of the worlds intelligence operations all did concur , along with the fact Saddam WAS playing hide the salami with the inspectors for ten years...HOW is it a " lie " ?

So... most of the world's intelligence operations agreed that Saddam had WMDs which he could use against Western targets with 45 minutes' notice?

That's the lie. Saddam's a tool? Yep. Saddam has WMDs? Yep. Saddam can drop anthrax on London in the next 45 minutes? Errr...

(it should be noted at this point that even "the Dodgy Dossier" didn't make this claim - it merely said that Saddam could use WMDs at 45 minutes' notice but omitted the context of "on the battlefield". This probably wasn't true either, but it's a lot less untrue than having the ability to drop them on Britain in 45 minutes - the part made-up by the Prime Minister's office and stated to parliament)

A lie is a deliberate false statement is it not ?

Yep.

Our PM makes a habit of it.


Even if you think he didn't deliberately lie, the alternative is even more grim - he doesn't bother checking anything and does and says whatever he's told to. This makes the guy running our country a figurehead - and the electorate have no say in the people behind him...

Either way we have a liar. Just with the second option we have a weak, puppet, lame-duck liar.


Hey, at least with Maggie, whatever you think of the crazy old bat, her justification to parliament for deploying the armed forces was "Because".

But the fact remains Saddam was a threat...and would be even more of a threat had the status quo been kept up . He had the people with the know how in place , he just needed some time to regroup....he did not get it .

I, and everybody I know, have absolutely no problem with that at all. Seriously - none. Saddam was a tosspot and needed removing. I'll say that again, because it's not getting through the anti- censors:

I, and everybody I know, have absolutely no problem with that at all. Seriously - none. Saddam was a tosspot and needed removing.

But I, and everybody I know, have a problem with the people responsible for our safety lying to us in order to get what they want.

We don't elect people to lie to us (well... we do. We elect politicians). Nor do we elect people only for them to have none of the power we elect them to and allow other, unelected, people to tell them what to do and say. Though I respect the work of MI6, they do not run the Prime Minister - the Prime Minister runs them. The PM tells them what to do, not the other way round. Or at least should do...


Incidentally, how did we get to Iraq, again, from the Transatlantic Bomb Plot?

 

[magburner]

Aside from gassing the Kurds after we left Iraq following Desert Storm . . . .

Your mistaken. The Kurds were gassed long before the first Gulf war. Your thinking of the Marsh Arabs that we incited to revolt, but left high 'n' dry only for their revolt was crushed.

There has also been evidence uncovered in captured documents that Iraqi leadership offered assistance and facilities to the terroist organizations, even if they did not actually participate, and in our declaration of purpose, that is enough to pursue. Granted, these documents were not known prior to the action, so you might argue an "end justifies the means" mentality, but I don't think that's the case. We went in for one reason, the reason turned out to be flawed, but too late, we've done it. Now we've found a truly valid reason, maybe that's awfully convenient, but it's no less applicable.

Isn't it funny how there is always evidence. We seem to forget that we were the ones that provided Saddam with techical assistance and Western expertise, provided Iran with arms as well as playing them off against each other during the Iran-Iraq war, and armed Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen in their struggle against the Russians in Afghanistan. Now you tell me who the real terrorists are?

I hope that you did not mean that America is at war with Islam.

I hope you that you didn't miss read my statement. Oops, too late you already have! Please take another look at what I posted.

You don't need to look behind the news to see what is really going on, just watch the news, and you will see! Our war on terror is their war on Islam.

Now, where in that statement did I say that America was at war with Islam? Keep searching, (you might even find weapons of mass destruction!) You really need to stop being so defensive, and stop jumping to conclusions. I was trying to show how something can look different from two points of view. For us (America and the UK) its a 'war on terror'. For the Muslims, it 'seems' to be a 'war on Islam'. There is no accusation there that America is at war with Islam. You are wrong if you thought that I might of implied that America was at war with Islam too, why would I need to anyway? George Bush is doing a perfectly good job of implying that himself!

(BBC) Bush's language angers US Muslims

As opposed to those that kill American citizens for....? Wait, why was 9/11 done again? Oh yeah, they just hate us.

Your barking up the wrong tree there, but you are right - they do hate us! The terrorists that carried out the 7/7 bombings where British citizens. Unless I'm mistaken, none of the 9/11 terrorists where American citizens. As tradgic as the 9/11 attacks were, it was nothing more than a lucky strike. The extremists needed to prove that they mean't business, and they chose something that was a soft 'high-value' target. Looking back now it is plain to see why they did it. Now, every half-baked extemist must have images of 9/11, 7/7 or 10/3 bombings running round their hate-filled heads. You couldn't ask for better benchmarks - the terrorist scumbags all want to go one better now, which of course is unfortunate for us.

(The Times) Why al-Qaeda's real power may be all in the mind

Any person that falls into this 16% is just as bad as a redneck that wants to beat up all the arabs because he thinks that they are all terrorists. You say he is just a stupid idiot who should know better but you blame a radical muslim on the government. Why?

Thats a poor comparison - they were hardly 'rednecks'. I don't idly blame the government either. The 7/7 bombers left matyrdom videos in which they specifically blamed our government for the war in Iraq, and its failed foreign policy. There is growing evidence that our involvement in the 'war on terror' is radicalizing the Muslim youth of the UK.

See the top of my post. They were there. Of course that doesn't include multiple UN resolution violations and even an assasination attempt on the leader of another country. If that isn't an act of war then what is?

Obviously, you settle for anything that sounds like the truth. As I stated earlier, there has still not been any credible evidence presented in the UK (by the government or the media) that proves that Saddam Hussein had any WMDs whatsoever at the time of the invasion.

Doh. I guess I just get too used to hearing how Bush did lie, Bush is lying, and Bush will lie because that's all he does that I react in that way.

There you go again, on the defensive! Who knows if Bush was lying, who cares now? Too much water has passed under the bridge to worry to much about the finer details. We could argue all day until we were blue in the face about the reasons/legalities of the invasion of Iraq, what can't be denied is that there is a growing wave of resentment here in the UK fueled by the 'war on terror'.

Its easy to for Americans to say that the war on terror is justified. You are far removed from the realities and dangers, and rarely feel the wrath of radical extremism. The UK on the other hand is fast becoming a new frontline in the 'war on terror'. Whilst it may be easy to invade foreign countries and impose our will and install 'pupet-regimes', its a little harder to do so in our own back yard. What do you suggest we should do? Lauch airstrikes against Bradford? Or maybe a land invasion of Birmaingham will sort it out? A gung-ho 'war on terror' will not solve the emerging problems we are faced with here in the UK. The terrorists arrested the other day, were until they became radicalized, no different from anyone else that lives in the UK. Many of them were from middle-class backgrounds, one was reported to be a gifted bio-chemist, others were recently married, were fathers, or expectant fathers - One suspect was only 17 years old! If they had been from working class families, I could almost understand their reasoning, but they are not. What would make young Muslims turn their backs on their homeland, a career and plot to kill their fellow citizens?

It has been reported that there are upwards of 1000 radicalized young Muslims in the UK that pose an immeidate threat. Lets put that into perspective. It only took four terrorist to wreak havok on the city of London a year ago, and nineteen to topple the twin towers, and kill thousands of innocent civillians. What do you think 1000 potential 'martyrs' would be capable of? Now, how do you suggest we sort the problem out? Remember these 'home-grown' terrorists are not the hethens that hide in caves across the Middle East, they were born here in the UK. They grew up alongside us, went to our schools, live in the houses next door to us, and speak with our accents.

(Daily Mail) The middle-class jet 'plotters'

(The Independent) The enemy within? The ordinary men in the midst of an extraordinary plot

(The Guardian) Ordinary friends who grew devout together

(The Times) Arrests included baker, salesman and book-keeper

I was watching Newsnight the other night, and there was a reporter talking to young Muslims and locals that had gathered outside a house which was raided by the police. Whilst many of them were shocked by the revalations that ther had apparently been terrorists living among them, some young Muslims were verbally hostile towards the reporter. There was one young Muslim, probably no older than seventeen or 18 who protested that Muslims had to stand up for their fellow Muslims in all the conflicts in the Middle East, particularly Lebanon. The anger on his face was obvious, and I was left wondering how many more there were who had thoughts similar to his. Like it or not, the war on terror, is a public relations sucess for the radical Imams and extremist Muslims that want nothing more than to wipe us all off the face of the earth, and a public relations disaster for ourselves. We are supposed to be fighting for liberty, freedom and democracy, so why do I feel like I am an accomplice to a great crime?

The UK used to be a respected nation amongst the many Arab and Asian nations in the Middle East and the wider world. Thanks to Tony Blair's unwavering support for George Bush, the 'war on terror', and more recently his silience (despite revolts in his own cabinet and his country) in calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon, has mean't that we are now tarred with the same brush that the extremists use to tar America. We are a peaceful and tolerant multi-cultural society. With each passing day though, the 'war on terror' is threatening to unravel everything that has been acheived so far in this great nation. We pride ourselves on the equality of our society, its a shame that that equality doesn't extend to our foreign policy. Its that kind of duplicity that we need to address. Also, Tony Blair needs to remember that our foreign policy is not an extensions of America's.

(The Guardian) Muslim leaders say foreign policy makes UK target.

(BBC) Muslim plea over foreign policy

In that article, it states that Muslim groups have written a letter to Tony Blair urging him to rethink his foreign policy. Here is a link to the full text of that letter: Muslim groups' letter.

(BBC - Video) Details of the letter sent to the prime minister.

We are faced with the real prospect that the disillusioned children of our nation want to destroy the very people they grew up with. How do you combat that? We can't very well kill them. Remember this is the UK, we don't kill our own citizens, no matter what their crime may be. We can't detain them either, as the sheer number of disillusioned would vastly increase our already creaking prison population. Besides, it would be counter-productive, and turn more young Muslims into extremists. I have said in another thread that the only way to beat terrorism is to remove the causes of terrorism. I believe that it will only be through dialogue and not war that our problems will be solved.

(The Independent) Muslim reaction: 'This is sad. I'm afraid for the community. I do hope they're innocent. I do hope'

Had Blair said "Look, we're going to take Saddam down, because he's a bit of a tool and we didn't do it right the first time" (taking the time to blame the Tories, of course), no-one would have had a problem. But the fact remains that, whether or not you think our presence in Iraq is justifiable (I err on the side of thinking it is), the UK's Armed Forces are there based on a lie told to parliament.

I couldn't of said it better myself. If Tony Blair had said that in the first place, I would of been able to get behind him a little easier.

Now you can see why .

No, not really. Sorry, to be so blunt, but I don't.

As a finishing note, I have just read on Al-Jazeera (and watched on the BBC) that one of the supposed terror suspects has apparently been released from custody. So another public relations gaff slowly unravels...?

(AL-Jarzeera) UK police release bomb plot suspect.

(BBC - Video) Police quiz plot suspects