Major Terror plot foiled in the United Kingdom, reportedly against U.S. bound flights

[Brent88]

Threat level there raised to critical which is very serious. :eek:

A major terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight has been disrupted by police, Scotland Yard says.

It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on board aircraft in hand luggage.

During the night, police arrested a number of people in London after a counter-terrorist operation they said had lasted several months.

Police believe the attacks would have been particularly targeted at flights from the UK to the US.

The Department for Transport said security at all UK airports has been increased.

Passengers on all flights will not be allowed to take any hand luggage on to any flights in the UK.

Only the barest essentials - including passports and wallets - will be allowed to be carried on board in transparent plastic bags.

[Brent88]

WHOA. At least TWENTY aircraft were targets! Bigger than the 9/11 plot... this is huge. :eek:

Critical Terror alert means attack is imminent!

[Fleet]

Cheers to those in the U.K. for preventing a potential huge terrorist attack. But remember, according to Mickey Moore, terrorism "is not a threat to the U.S." (or the U.K., I guess).

[Seth]

Well, hopefully this was the fullest extent of the plot, and has been foiled. And with security everywhere now presumably going to be on major alert, any other plots should hopefully be thwarted as well.

[Dr. John Becker]

Cheers to those in the U.K. for preventing a potential huge terrorist attack. But remember, according to Mickey Moore, terrorism "is not a threat to the U.S." (or the U.K., I guess).

People like Mickey Moore are perfect examples why we can't let liberals be in charge of national security.

[Dr. John Becker]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207682,00.html

[Bobby F.]

Cheers to those in the U.K. for preventing a potential huge terrorist attack. But remember, according to Mickey Moore, terrorism "is not a threat to the U.S." (or the U.K., I guess).

Come on Fleet! You know 9/11 was an inside job. This has to be part of the big Bush conspiracy. It's all a set-up just to make Bush and the right look good.:rolleyes: :crazy: :crazy:

[Auntie]

Well, hopefully this was the fullest extent of the plot, and has been foiled. And with security everywhere now presumably going to be on major alert, any other plots should hopefully be thwarted as well.
What these airlines have to do is to check every person boarding every flight. No matter how much people complain. Just radomly checking is getting no where. And to think Ms. Monquie was making a big deal over being escorted off the plane because they wouldn't let her board on flight with a hair dryer,(something to that effect) please:rolleyes:

[Auntie]

Come on Fleet! You know 9/11 was an inside job. This has to be part of the big Bush conspiracy. It's all a set-up just to make Bush and the right look good.:rolleyes: :crazy: :crazy:
(sighs) Here we go again, blame Bush for everything. That's why the liberals complain about Bush, he don't take any nonsence from anyone. Unlike Clinton who just about let the liberals do as they pleased.

[Bobby F.]

(sighs) Here we go again, blame Bush for everything. That's why the liberals complain about Bush, he don't take any nonsence from anyone. Unlike Clinton who just about let the liberals do as they pleased.

You do understand that I was being sarcastic.;)

[KissMyGrits]

You do understand that I was being sarcastic.;)
Auntie doesn't understand sarcasm!! LOL!! She likes to jump on anyone that makes a joke about him. She posts first and thinks later!!

[Sterling Holobyte]

Come on Fleet! You know 9/11 was an inside job. This has to be part of the big Bush conspiracy. It's all a set-up just to make Bush and the right look good.:rolleyes: :crazy: :crazy:
I don't think some of the liberal loonies would get that you were being sarcastic, either. Some of them are already starting, check this out:crazy: :http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/1e319890-9a89-4721-b9ae-bc30718b5153

[gilligan fanatic]

They were saying Pakistan helped nab them so what is with them? Sometimes they seem like they don't like us and then other times they help us.

[Yooch]

Thank goodness. Vigilance pays off. Everytime they nab people like this, it makes my day!

[Ireneparalegal]

Just one more reason why I won't fly.

[KissMyGrits]

Just one more reason why I won't fly.
Agreed!! I would much rather drive to wherever I am going! It takes longer, but it is much safer!!

[dawsongirl]

Well, we can only hope these terrorists are shot first, then questions can be asked, but that won't happen. :(

Guess the hint to passengers in the coming days....CHECK ALL YOUR LIQUIDS. People have had to leave contact solution, wine, maple syrup, makeup, lip gloss, juice boxes, etc. at the airport because they tried to carry it on. Lip Gloss? Toothpaste? Seems a tad extreme, but you gotta do what they tell you.

[TJL]

:clap

[Fleet]

Just one more reason why I won't fly.
But if no one flies, there will be no more airline companies. And a lot of people, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, will lose their jobs.

Besides, I plan to fly to "Gilligan's Island." ;)

[Central Perk]

I'm really glad that a potential plot was thwarted.

Look at that line. :eek:

[gilligan fanatic]

Besides, I plan to fly to "Gilligan's Island." ;)

Wrongway Feldman would have to take you and you might end up somewhere else, you could always settle for a three hour tour.

[Brent88]

Terrorists planned to use a peroxide-based solution that comes in liquid or paste form as part of the bombs to explode as many as 10 planes, two U.S. officials tell CNN.

Some were apparently going on a dry run by this weekend with the actual attack following a few days later. :eek:

[Yooch]

:rock: Kudos to Britain, U.S. and Pakistan for stopping these filthy b*******!!!

[Fleet]

Wrongway Feldman would have to take you and you might end up somewhere else, you could always settle for a three hour tour.
I would pay him $50 to set me down in Mary Ann's hut. :)

[staypuftman2004]

:rock: Kudos to Britain, U.S. and Pakistan for stopping these filthy b*******!!!
i Second that

[Janice]

Thank God this plot was stopped. I can't even imagine another big attack. I still struggle emotionally with 9/11. Terrorists suck.

[ABlairican Pie]

Some lady at work was telling me that due the events of this past day, airlines will no longer allow any liquids or such things as shampoo or toothpaste on board flights from here on out. No laptops, no cell phones, nothing. Is this for real?? :eek: I have a hard time thinking that modern conveniences such as toiletries or communication devices as cell phones and laptops would be forever banned. Businesspersons would suffer.

Like it or not, the threat of terrorism seems here to stay. :( Thank God officials in Britain nipped this thing in the bud!! :clap:

[Czas na Zywiec]

these people make me sick. I will never, ever let them succeed in turning me off from flying. Im going to Chicago on Sunday and the biggest thing I'm looking forward about my trip is the plane ride. I looooooove airplanes and flying. airplanes, airline netowkring, airports, etc., are a huge hobby of mine. if i had played my cards right, I would have become a pilot. but life didn't take me that way unfortunately.

[Czas na Zywiec]

Some lady at work was telling me that due the events of this past day, airlines will no longer allow any liquids or such things as shampoo or toothpaste on board flights from here on out. No laptops, no cell phones, nothing. Is this for real?? :eek: I have a hard time thinking that modern conveniences such as toiletries or communication devices as cell phones and laptops would be forever banned. Businesspersons would suffer.

Like it or not, the threat of terrorism seems here to stay. :( Thank God officials in Britain nipped this thing in the bud!! :clap:

are you kidding me? No cell phones or laptops? well then where the hell else am I supposed to put my laptop, in my suitcase so it can get killed from all the tossing and tumbling the ground crew does with the bags?

[Seth]

http://tsa-7.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/tsa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=254&p_created=1155227254&p_sid=57AWzNei&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xNiZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9JnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1

Laptops, cell phones and other electronic items
Question
Media have also reported that laptops, cell phones and electronic items are no longer allowed. Is that true?
Answer
No. TSA continues to allow laptop computers, cell phones and other electronic items.

[Czas na Zywiec]

Thanks Seth. :)

[dawsongirl]

Some lady at work was telling me that due the events of this past day, airlines will no longer allow any liquids or such things as shampoo or toothpaste on board flights from here on out. No laptops, no cell phones, nothing. Is this for real?? :eek: I have a hard time thinking that modern conveniences such as toiletries or communication devices as cell phones and laptops would be forever banned. Businesspersons would suffer.


Guess we'll all just have to learn to live with packing our toothpaste, shampoo, etc, in our checked luggage and hope it doesn't explode midflight and you end up with lotion in your underwear.

[KissMyGrits]

Guess we'll all just have to learn to live with packing our toothpaste, shampoo, etc, in our checked luggage and hope it doesn't explode midflight and you end up with lotion in your underwear.
LOL!! A trick I learned from a friend. Pack all liquids in a ziploc bag. They even have the bigger bags now.

[dawsongirl]

LOL!! A trick I learned from a friend. Pack all liquids in a ziploc bag. They even have the bigger bags now.
Exactly what my mom told me! :D

[Janice]

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.08.10.DirectIntercept-X.gif

[Sharop]

Terrorists suck.

I agree. I feel a bit ashamed, since this is such a serious topic, but that line "terrorists suck" actually made me chuckle. It reminded me of the scene from The Goonies where Ma Fratellis kicks Mikey, Brand, Mouth, Chunk and Data out of the Fratellis' hideout, closed the door and said, "Kids suck."

My family and I are going to America on 24th August. I guess it looks like I won't be able to take anything on the plane with me. I can see why they've made this rule, but I still wish I could take some things with me.

Set Kevin McCallister on the terrorists, is what I say. Have them subjected to the same things that Harry and Marv were subjected to when they tried to rob his house. I can see it now - slipping on stairs, burning their hands on doorknobs that have red-hot pokers on them, getting their heads burned by blowtorches, have them step on nails, step on sharp Christmas ornaments, have paint cans swung into their faces, place big, hairy tarantulas on their faces, and cut a rope as they're crawling across it and have them swing forwards and smash into a wall...

Wouldn't you love all of that to happen to terrorists?

[TJL]

August 12, 2006 -- What if the terrorists had succeeded? What if, days from now, suicide bombers manage to bring down 10 airliners over the Atlantic, costing thousands of innocent lives?
And what if the reason they succeeded is that the people charged with foiling their plans had their hands tied because of outcries from the civil-liberties crowd?

What would the American Civil Liberties Union, congressional Democrats and the editors of The New York Times be saying to the American people then?

That didn't happen, thank goodness.

But what did happen should provide some stiff lessons for Americans - particularly Democrats of the kind that just made the anti-war movement's Ned Lamont their candidate for U.S. Senate.

* Lesson One: The plot failed, in part, because British law-enforcement agents did not face the kind of unreasonable constraints that those on the left are trying to place on the Bush administration.

Think back to the uproar from the media and countless Democrats that greeted disclosure of programs like the warrantless surveillance of calls abroad by those with ties to terrorist groups

Think of the mind-set of groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union, which sued to block the NYPD's bag searches for bus and subway riders.

Yesterday, a federal appeals court rightly upheld the legality of that program. In its ruling, Judge Chester Straub said the program "might well stymie" an attack, "disrupt the synchronicity of multiple bombings or at least reduce casualties by forcing the terrorist to detonate in a less-populated location."

Duh. Such steps are the minimum needed to fight terror on the home front.

There's more: Officials say a key element in unraveling this plot is that they were able to track financial wire transfers to the terrorists from Pakistan, as well as communiciations.

Yet, who can forget The New York Times' "exposé" of a top-secret U.S. program to track terrorist financing? Or the USA Today story, later proved largely wrong, about a National Security Agency program to collect telephone-call data?

As The Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday, "We wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or The New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs." It's a good question.

* Lesson Two: It's time to admit who the enemy is - and to target him.

President Bush reacted to the news of the foiled plot by reminding everyone that the threat comes not from the general population but from "Islamic fascists." Indeed, in almost every case, the suspects are young Muslim males.

Not Swedish grandmothers.

Law enforcers need to cut out the political correctness and, yes - profile.

Any other policy wastes resources, inconveniences unlikely suspects and lowers the chances of stopping the bad guys.

* Lesson Three: The terrorists may be living right next door.

Many of those arrested were longtime residents of their communities in Britain. Some neighbors expressed surprise over the arrests.

Well, everyone needs to be more suspicious (without leaping to any conclusions, of course.)

Most important is freeing up authorities to investigate leads - even when they involve U.S. citizens.


The War on Terror has triggered a political war among Americans pitting those who think the threat is a potential reduction (however slight) of freedoms and those who think it is the potential devastation from terror attacks of the kind thwarted Thursday.

In this war, America needs to err on the side of saving lives. The plot itself showed that the margin of error is razor-thin: The terrorists were arrested just days before they were to strike.

Yes, temporary compromises may be needed. But Americans will either have to live with those compromises.

Or risk dying without them.

[Dr. John Becker]

August 12, 2006 -- What if the terrorists had succeeded? What if, days from now, suicide bombers manage to bring down 10 airliners over the Atlantic, costing thousands of innocent lives?
And what if the reason they succeeded is that the people charged with foiling their plans had their hands tied because of outcries from the civil-liberties crowd?

What would the American Civil Liberties Union, congressional Democrats and the editors of The New York Times be saying to the American people then?

That didn't happen, thank goodness.

But what did happen should provide some stiff lessons for Americans - particularly Democrats of the kind that just made the anti-war movement's Ned Lamont their candidate for U.S. Senate.

* Lesson One: The plot failed, in part, because British law-enforcement agents did not face the kind of unreasonable constraints that those on the left are trying to place on the Bush administration.

Think back to the uproar from the media and countless Democrats that greeted disclosure of programs like the warrantless surveillance of calls abroad by those with ties to terrorist groups

Think of the mind-set of groups like the New York Civil Liberties Union, which sued to block the NYPD's bag searches for bus and subway riders.

Yesterday, a federal appeals court rightly upheld the legality of that program. In its ruling, Judge Chester Straub said the program "might well stymie" an attack, "disrupt the synchronicity of multiple bombings or at least reduce casualties by forcing the terrorist to detonate in a less-populated location."

Duh. Such steps are the minimum needed to fight terror on the home front.

There's more: Officials say a key element in unraveling this plot is that they were able to track financial wire transfers to the terrorists from Pakistan, as well as communiciations.

Yet, who can forget The New York Times' "exposé" of a top-secret U.S. program to track terrorist financing? Or the USA Today story, later proved largely wrong, about a National Security Agency program to collect telephone-call data?

As The Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday, "We wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or The New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs." It's a good question.

* Lesson Two: It's time to admit who the enemy is - and to target him.

President Bush reacted to the news of the foiled plot by reminding everyone that the threat comes not from the general population but from "Islamic fascists." Indeed, in almost every case, the suspects are young Muslim males.

Not Swedish grandmothers.

Law enforcers need to cut out the political correctness and, yes - profile.

Any other policy wastes resources, inconveniences unlikely suspects and lowers the chances of stopping the bad guys.

* Lesson Three: The terrorists may be living right next door.

Many of those arrested were longtime residents of their communities in Britain. Some neighbors expressed surprise over the arrests.

Well, everyone needs to be more suspicious (without leaping to any conclusions, of course.)

Most important is freeing up authorities to investigate leads - even when they involve U.S. citizens.


The War on Terror has triggered a political war among Americans pitting those who think the threat is a potential reduction (however slight) of freedoms and those who think it is the potential devastation from terror attacks of the kind thwarted Thursday.

In this war, America needs to err on the side of saving lives. The plot itself showed that the margin of error is razor-thin: The terrorists were arrested just days before they were to strike.

Yes, temporary compromises may be needed. But Americans will either have to live with those compromises.

Or risk dying without them.


Excellant post. The Democrats are so worried about getting Bush that even the security of the nation isn't as important.

[Fleet]

Excellant post. The Democrats are so worried about getting Bush that even the security of the nation isn't as important.
Some of us here have said before that it would take another major terrorist attack in this country before some people (read: liberals) would finally realize the threat of terrorism.
Luckily, many (yes, even some liberals :eek: ) now do realize that the Patriot Act and NSA are around for a very good reason. Because of those two, 10 terrorist acts have been prevented. And this last terrorist plan in the U.K. had been prevented because they have a similar Patriot Act over there... which is even more strict than what we have.

[Bobby F.]

Some of us here have said before that it would take another major terrorist attack in this country before some people (read: liberals) would finally realize the threat of terrorism.
Luckily, many (yes, even some liberals :eek: ) now do realize that the Patriot Act and NSA are around for a very good reason. Because of those two, 10 terrorist acts have been prevented. And this last terrorist plan in the U.K. had been prevented because they have a similar Patriot Act over there... which is even more strict than what we have.

They also didn't have the ACLU breathing down their necks or the New York Times giving away secrets. One of the ways that they were able to track the terorist down was through finacial tracking. You know, that thing that the NYT had a big article on. Losers.

[ABlairican Pie]

They also didn't have the ACLU breathing down their necks or the New York Times giving away secrets. One of the ways that they were able to track the terorist down was through finacial tracking. You know, that thing that the NYT had a big article on. Losers.

Terrorist funds-tracking no secret, some say
Cite White House boasts of tighter monitoring system
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 28, 2006

WASHINGTON -- News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

On Monday, President Bush said it was ``disgraceful" that The New York Times and other media outlets reported last week that the US government was quietly monitoring international financial transactions handled by an industry-owned cooperative in Belgium called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT, which is controlled by nearly 8,000 institutions in 20 countries. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal also reported about the program.

The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of ``treason," telling reporters in a conference call that it ``scares the devil out of me" that the media would reveal such sensitive information. Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, requested US intelligence agencies to assess whether the reports have damaged anti terrorism operations. And Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has urged Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to pursue ``possible criminal prosecution" of the Times, which has reported on other secret government surveillance programs. The New York Times Co. owns The Boston Globe.

But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

``There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."

Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. ``A lot of people were aware that this was going on," said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task.

``Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing."

Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and other financial institutions that move money around the world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad access to its database.

SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses ``are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information," according to the 33-page report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the UN Security Council in late 2001. ``The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."

Some worry that the new disclosures will nonetheless hamper US counter-terrorism efforts.

``I worked this stuff and I can guarantee that [revealing the SWIFT] information made a difference," said Dennis Lormel, a retired FBI special agent who helped establish the bureau's Terrorist Financing Operations Section before leaving government in 2003. ``The disclosure will have an adverse impact on investigations. It was used in two specific instances where it helped to track terrorists. We also used it for lead value."

But the White House has also been very public about its efforts to track the overseas banking transactions of Americans and other foreign nationals.

Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist groups. The executive order was posted on the White House website.

The document called for ``cooperation with, and sharing information by, United States and foreign financial institutions as an additional tool to enable the United States to combat the financing of terrorism."

Richard Newcomb , the head of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control at the time, later publicly credited the president for enabling US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to nab suspected terrorists, including followers of ``Hambali, " Al Qaeda's leader in Southeast Asia. The New York Times report said Hambali's capture in 2003 came with the aid of information gleaned from SWIFT.

Administration officials have said this week that the disclosure of such details were particularly damaging to US security.

Nevertheless, in July 2003 -- a month before Hambali was captured -- Newcomb told the Senate Government Affairs Committee in detail about a program initiated after 9/11 between his office and the Pentagon to track Hambali's financial network in Southeast Asia. The scope of the project included Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore, focusing on the finances of Jemaa Islamiyah , the Al Qaeda group run by Hambali that was responsible for deadly bombings in Bali in 2002.

He said the operation ``identified the key leaders, fund-raisers, businessmen, recruiters, companies, charities, mosques, and schools that were part of [Jamaa Islamiyah] support network. Thus far, we have imposed sanctions against two of these key nodes, and are coordinating action against several others," Newcomb told the committee.

Other public documents have also detailed post-9/11 efforts to follow terrorist money.

The Patriot Act approved by Congress after the attacks emphasized providing new authorities for the Bush administration to track and choke off terrorist funds around the world. One part of the act, dealing specifically with terrorist money, was described by the Treasury Department as the most ``significant [anti-money-laundering] law" since a 1970 law requiring banks to report cash transactions over $10,000.

That section of the Patriot Act required the Bush administration to ``adopt regulations to encourage further cooperation among financial institutions, their regulatory authorities, and law enforcement authorities" to track terrorist-related money laundering.

In testimony before Congress in early 2002, Juan C. Zarate , deputy assistant Treasury secretary in charge of terrorism and violent crime, discussed how the global exchange of information was a key element in choking off their source of funds.

He cited a special international meeting hosted a month after the attacks by the international Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, ``to eliminate existing impediments to exchanging information" between financial institutions and to find solutions to the challenges of tracking terrorist funds.



© Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[Bobby F.]

Terrorist funds-tracking no secret, some say


Even if it wasn't a bigtime secret I can almost guarentee that there were still some dumb-ass terrorist out there that had no idea of it. Now it's on the front page of one of the major newspapers in the world. It's even less of a secret now.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Excellant post. The Democrats are so worried about getting Bush that even the security of the nation isn't as important.Is that so? As I recall it's only Democrats who care where Bin Laden is anymore, Republicans have completely forgotten about him. You remember who he is, don't you?

[Dr. John Becker]

Is that so? As I recall it's only Democrats who care where Bin Laden is anymore, Republicans have completely forgotten about him. You remember who he is, don't you?

He's the one who our troops in Afganistan are hunting for under Bush's orders.
Democrats only care about him because they feel it's a way to regain power.

BTW, what is the Democrats great plan to catch Osama?

[Bobby F.]

Is that so? As I recall it's only Democrats who care where Bin Laden is anymore, Republicans have completely forgotten about him. You remember who he is, don't you?

You already bitch because we went into Iraq. Now you want us to go into Pakistan. Can you say hypocrit????:lol:

[James"Thunder"Early]

He's the one who our troops in Afganistan are hunting for under Bush's orders.
Democrats only care about him because they feel it's a way to regain power.

BTW, what is the Democrats great plan to catch Osama?

The searching is over
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ei=5088&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ex=1309665600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

At least Democrats are showing concern about this

The plan is to end the Iraq nonsense and get resources where they belong.

[gilligan fanatic]

You already bitch because we went into Iraq. Now you want us to go into Pakistan. Can you say hypocrit????:lol:

not from dictionary.com but you get the message

Democrat: A filp flopping hypocrite with no plan for the future with no realistic goals who bitch about everything and everybody and want eveything given to everyone with out them trying.

[Dr. John Becker]

The searching is over
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ei=5088&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ex=1309665600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

At least Democrats are showing concern about this

The plan is to end the Iraq nonsense and get resources where they belong.

We already know where he is, why keep searching when we have him found.

Like Bobby said, Dems would be bitching if we went into Pakistan.

I'm not surprised that the NY Slimes printed an article like that though. Liberal newspaper that gives away anti-terror stratgies.

[Dr. John Becker]

not from dictionary.com but you get the message

Democrat: A filp flopping hypocrite with no plan for the future with no realistic goals who bitch about everything and everybody and want eveything given to everyone with out them trying.

It may as well be from Dictionary.com. It's right on the money.:p

[Bobby F.]

The searching is over
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ei=5088&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ex=1309665600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

At least Democrats are showing concern about this

The plan is to end the Iraq nonsense and get resources where they belong.

And how do you plan on ending in Iraq other than Cut and Run. Your party is a joke. Nothing but hate and bashing with no plan or direction.

[James"Thunder"Early]

not from dictionary.com but you get the message

Democrat: A filp flopping hypocrite with no plan for the future with no realistic goals who bitch about everything and everybody and want eveything given to everyone with out them trying.Thank you, Sean Hannity for showing an example of right-wing silliness.

[Dr. John Becker]

And how do you plan on ending in Iraq other than Cut and Run. Your party is a joke. Nothing but hate and bashing with no plan or direction.

When Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton are the leaders of a party, I'd except nothing less then a joke.

[Dr. John Becker]

The searching is over
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?ei=5088&en=3779ed9b98bb9d22&ex=1309665600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

At least Democrats are showing concern about this

The plan is to end the Iraq nonsense and get resources where they belong.


Thank you Micheal Moore for showing an example of left-wing silliness.

[Bobby F.]

Thank you, Sean Hannity for showing an example of right-wing silliness.

Not silly Doc. Just fun loving right wingers. Unlike the libs who walk around like they have a corn-cob stuck up their arse.:happyface

[James"Thunder"Early]

We already know where he is, why keep searching when we have him found.And when did this happen? The same day those pigs flew over the blue state of Utah? If his whereabouts were known, he'd have been caught by know.

Like Bobby said, Dems would be bitching if we went into Pakistan.Just an excuse not to do the job. Instead, some people believe Pakistan is a friend, but as Benazir Bhutto says, they aren't.

I'm not surprised that the NY Slimes printed an article like that though. Liberal newspaper that gives away anti-terror stratgies.It was the truth, oh I forgot you've got a serious aversion to that.

[gilligan fanatic]

Not silly Doc. Just fun loving right wingers. Unlike the libs who walk around like they have a corn-cob stuck up their arse.:happyface


we take terrorism and our country seriously, not TV message boards

[Dr. John Becker]

And when did this happen? The same day those pigs flew over the blue state of Utah? If his whereabouts were known, he'd have been caught by know.



You really didn't say whether or not you want the troops to go into Pakistan. That's why Osama hasn't been caught is because Pakistan won't let us in.

[James"Thunder"Early]

we take terrorism and our country seriously, not TV message boardsAnyone who supports the Dubya and his Republicans, doesn't take anything at all seriously.

[Dr. John Becker]

It was the truth, oh I forgot you've got a serious aversion to that.

The Times prints the truth. Is that so?

http://www.antimedia.us/new_york_times/

[Bobby F.]

And when did this happen? The same day those pigs flew over the blue state of Utah? If his whereabouts were known, he'd have been caught by know..[/QUOTE]

Did you just climb out from under a rock?? Who doesn't know that he's in Pakistan.

Just an excuse not to do the job. Instead, some people believe Pakistan is a friend, but as Benazir Bhutto says, they aren't..

Sooooooooo we should just invade them and let you lefties have a field day over it????:crazy: :crazy:

It was the truth, oh I forgot you've got a serious aversion to that.

NYT's and Truth. Now that is an OXYMORON!!!:happyface

[James"Thunder"Early]

You really didn't say whether or not you want the troops to go into Pakistan. That's why Osama hasn't been caught is because Pakistan won't let us in.Whatever must be done should be done. Real threats should be taken care of.

[Bobby F.]

Anyone who supports the Dubya and his Republicans, doesn't take anything at all seriously.

This coming from the party that just got rid of Joe Leiberman.:rolleyes:

[Bobby F.]

Whatever must be done should be done. Real threats should be taken care of.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You are a riot, Doc. You would be the first one on here bitching because we went into Pakistan.:crazy:

[Dr. John Becker]

:lol: :lol: :lol: You are a riot, Doc. You would be the first one on here bitching because we went into Pakistan.:crazy:

:crazy:
He and T ID would go crazy bashing Bush if we went into Pakistan.

[James"Thunder"Early]

Thank you Micheal Moore for showing an example of left-wing silliness.A Republican mentioning Michael Moore? What a surprise.

[Dr. John Becker]

A Republican mentioning Michael Moore? What a surprise.


We're just glad he's on your side and not ours.:)

[gilligan fanatic]

Anyone who supports the Dubya and his Republicans, doesn't take anything at all seriously.

your forgot a word in your sentence what you mean to say is "Anyone who doesn't support President Bush and the Republican Party can't be taken seriously"

hence why you guys are always making fools of yourselves.

[gilligan fanatic]

A Republican mentioning Michael Moore? What a surprise.

We got a long list of looneys to pick from. He is just one of MANY

[James"Thunder"Early]

your forgot a word in your sentence what you mean to say is "Anyone who doesn't support President Bush and the Republican Party can't be taken seriously"

hence why you guys are always making fools of yourselves.So now anyone who isn't a Republican or Bush supporter can't be taken seriously? Another example of blind support for Bush.

[ABlairican Pie]

If Bush has such major ties to the bin Laden family, why don't they tell him where he is? Do they not know themselves? They MUST know.

[gilligan fanatic]

So now anyone who isn't a Republican or Bush supporter can't be taken seriously? Another example of blind support for Bush.

I saw the exact same thing you did I just changed the partys!!!!!

So what every you are saying I said you said first

[Fleet]

If Bush has such major ties to the bin Laden family, why don't they tell him where he is? Do they not know themselves? They MUST know.
As already stated, BL is in Pakistan... and they won't allow U.S. troops in. Should the U.S. enter Pakistan by force?

[Sharop]

They also didn't have the ACLU breathing down their necks or the New York Times giving away secrets. One of the ways that they were able to track the terorist down was through finacial tracking. You know, that thing that the NYT had a big article on. Losers.

Remember these lyrics?

"...We can try to understand the New York Times' effect on man.
Whether you're a brother, or whether you're a mother,
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive,
Feel the city breaking and everybody shaking,
Stayin' alive, stayin' alive,
Ah, ah, ah, ah, stayin' alive, stayin' alive..."

Thank you, Sean Hannity for showing an example of right-wing silliness.

We could just say that all of politics is silly. All it seems to do is cause fights. They should discuss films in the White House, instead of political issues.

[Yooch]

We could just say that all of politics is silly. All it seems to do is cause fights. They should discuss films in the White House, instead of political issues.[/quote]

It would make for a more peaceful world, wouldn't it? :)

[Dr. John Becker]

As already stated, BL is in Pakistan... and they won't allow U.S. troops in. Should the U.S. enter Pakistan by force?

It's one of those questions that liberals can't answer. If they go with the typical liberal answer which would be no, they are doing what Bush is doing.

If they say yes and Bush actually went to Pakistan, they couldn't complain about it.

[Sharop]

It would make for a more peaceful world, wouldn't it? :)

I'd hope so. :) I know it's entirely possible to have a really good political debate without there being any nastiness, but unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to happen often.

But then again, maybe arguments would break out over films, too.

"OMG! You don't like The Godfather? That's it..."

"Did you say you think Home Alone is a STUPID movie!?"