British authorities have thwarted a major terrorist attack in the U.K., one where terorrists would detonate liquid-based bombs in carry-on baggage on over 20 flights from the U.K. to the U.S.

Stories here and here.

This is a nightmare for those traveling back and forth right now. Not only are will they be worried but it looks a mess. Heathrow is busy at the best of times. But it snowballs to the lesser airports. Manchester, Glasgow etc..... So many summer flights to the USA. Heading that way in October again hope things calm down and they got it before anything happens. Security is so much more relaxed over there (not now). But once your in the system your in. Fingers crossed no one was in first.

I'd rather face the delays of security clearance at the airport than see Lockerbie-like scenes played over and over again on the evening news. In all the times I've flown since 9/11, I have never felt the need to complain about security at airports. I'd rather be a little late than dead.

I'm with you, Aquaman; the minor inconvenience pales in comparison to the harm that might be caused. Same at the subway turnstiles, too.

Another great contribution to civilization from the "religion of peace." If anyone's heard any denunciations of this from any Muslim clerics, ANYWHERE, I'd sure like to hear of them myself. I won't be holding my breath - but I will be saying my own prayers.

gmg, I'm getting scared that I'm agreeing with you AND MIB in 1 week. Well, not necessarily scared, but it sure is amusing.

The inconvenience here of not being able to carry my shampoo or any other liquids or gels pales in comparison to my plane blowing up is a small price to pay. I can buy the travel stuff when I get to where I'm going. It's a necessary evil.

I won't disparage Islam at all, but I sure do hope the clerics speak out against the "need" to commit homicide in the name of religion (both Muslim AND Christian alike).

Don't be afraid of being on the side of reason, UCLA, and the truth never disparaged anything or anyone, whatever their faith.

I have no problem standing in line a little longer if it keeps everyone safe. Likewise having to buy toothpaste, deoderant etc if it will keep those types of home made explosives off the planes.
It's a whole brand new world.

On an aside, I flew into Heathrow Jan 2005 for my Uncles funeral, and landed at terminal 4, and then had to transfer to Terminal 1 to catch a connecting flight north. It is NOT a pedestrian friendly airport, and I can just imagine how much more stranger it will get when they open terminal 5 next year (I think it opens in 2007). It was actually faster for me to fly into Gatwick, catch the train into London Kings Cross Euston, walk across the street to Kings Cross and catch the high speed train north. (I did that in 2004). I got into Durham 1.5 hours earlier than waiting to change planes at Heathrow.
Cousins of mine now fly to Amsterdam and fly to Newcastle, it's even cheaper and faster so they say.

Liquids dumped and no carry-on luggage? When does it end? I'm sure there's a way to make a bomb out of a button but they are letting buttons get past security. And zippers too...yikes!

Our fear is amazing. I'm sorry but there has to be a point of diminishing returns with airport security.

I'm guessing within a year I'll be on a flight completely naked commiserating with the lady beside me about the 20 minute anal inspection we just got though.

I'm in San Antonio right now, having taught a two-day conference for a large health plan association. Heard the news as soon as I got up this AM, and of course was a little ticked off that I had to check my bag (I had only carried on when I came here Tuesday) in order to keep my contact lens solution, toothpaste, hair gel and moisturizer (if you didn't know I was gay before...). Then we got word that San Antonio airport was recommending arriving 3 hours before your flight.

I skipped lunch, headed to the aiport early, had no wait in security lines (it's a small airport) and now have another 90 minutes, minimum, to kill before the plane I am supposed to leave on even arrives at the airport. My flight to DC from Chicago, where I have to change planes, is also already delayed, even though it is not supposed to leave Minneapolis until 5:50 this evening. I am just hoping I get into DC at a reasonable hour tonight.

I understand the need to be safe, but "Wolf!" has been cried so often with regards to these alleged plots that I am a little cynical. For one thing, the British authorities have apparently been briefing the US authorities for days - why were the restrictions only put into place today? For the second thing, Cheney, who had to know about the plot, was quoted yesterday that the Lieberman loss would embolden Al Queda, so he certainly didn't wait to use this threat for political gain, so how serious was it really?

Supposedly the TSA screening procedures will be updated so we can carry on liquids within a few days, but as I once carried a knife on an airplace inadvertantly (found it when I got to my destination) and TSA never found it, I have to wonder about any supposed changes that they will make will be meaningful.

I guess I am frustrated that, 5 years after 9/11, we don't really seem to have a better handle on airport security than we did before that horrible day.

I kept telling people that government screeners would be useless. That's what we get for creating another bureaucracy called TSA. Worse, we then created this monstrosity called the Dept. of Homeland Security! :mad:

Something has also just been discovered in India, allegedly involving Al Quida, but I can't find a link. Oh well, I guess the internet isn't good for everything, after all!

The political implications of this are inevitable.

This is an unexpected August surprise that may play either way politically. And the football is being tossed already.

Once again the suspects are educated and sophisticated, as well as domestic. Their origins are again within an ally in the war on terror. Each attack comes closer to home.

Well, this is getting more interesting by the minute. It turns out that the British learned of this plot primarily via the NSA intercepts that the U.S. had on terrorist communications--you know, the ones where the Left here went bonkers claiming the NSA was wiretapping American citizens' phone calls but was in reality listening in on suspected terrorist phone calls. Great Britain had been following this plot for months and was provided information by U.S. authorities. Kudos to MI5 and Scotland Yard.

Indeed. One political analyst said yesterday that had this been revealed Monday, Lieberman would have won the primary. I'm not saying this guy is right, but it would have been interesting.

Thanks for posting this MIB; why haven't I seen more coverage of it in the general press??? You needn't answer that; I'm sure someone else will chime in to refute it.

BTW, you're no relation to the British spy unit of the almost-same name, are you??? wink

You may. I saw it reported on NBC News, MSNBC, and FNC. A gentleman who is retired from Scotland Yard was interviewed and he also discussed it.

Hmmmm...you may be on to something, gmg. eek!

How about we take five minutes to be happy that all Americans are safe for now, as well as citizens of other countries who may have been on these flights? Cheney couldn't do this or MIB obviously..without immediately playing it for political points.

I won't even start in on Cheney's comments regarding Lieberman. Despicable is the only appropriate description.

I'm not playing this for political points; I'm simply stating what has been reported. If you cannot accept that, move along.

I'm moving along...

That's good news!

So you're saying that because I'm mostly liberal, it's good that I'm moving along and not holding you accountable for your partisan babble?

God, MIB you take every opportunity to play it for political gains.

Boy! You sure do infer and assume a lot from a simple 3-word reply. Poor thing. frown

Oh and liberals all of a sudden aren't allowed to infer and assume! Gosh...why does the right wing have to hog all the bad human traits???

Oh, trust me, you guys do a LOT of inferring and assuming, way too much as is illustrated by your posts above. This is why your inferences are so often incorrect, because you take 3 words and blow them way out of proportion.

But at least you're entertaining when you do it.

Yeah that was all for entertainment purposes...lol.

My crew doesn't get here for another hour and I was feeling a bit antsy and mischevious. I'm so full of beans this morning...

Okay back to your regularly scheduled thread already in progress...

Yes, I'm glad that the plot was foiled and I hope the Brits - and anyone else on our side for that matter - keep using information from whatever the source to foil such plots.

Cheney's comments make perfect sense to me. What has Lamont said about how he'd fight the war on terror other than to pull a Neville Chamberlain and withdraw from Iraq? As far as their being out of line, compare them to those from other OSers' postings in the thread dealing with Lieberman's loss and then tell me whose are more vindictive, petty, or just plain mean-spirited. And this from fellow Demos!

Yeah, a regular Punch 'n' Judy show!

I ain't wearin' no dress!

Wow - wrong AGAIN MIB

At least you are consistant.

The NSA intercepts provided to the pakistanis and the Brits consisted of international communications - primarily between Pakistan and the UK.

Not the private communications of US citizens within the US.

Prsonally I still find it reprehensible that my government is involved in monitoring private communications around the world just because they can; but I am very glad that in this case something good came out of it.

Further, since when did the right to ones personal communications become an agenda item of the liberal left? Has the Republican mainstream shifted so far from its roots that it repudiates the IV amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers..."

Those papers they were originally refering to included personal letters and communications involving political dessent. The framers were attempting to ensure the sanctity of private communications - I doubt if they ever imagined how far we would stray from seeing the nescessity of that.

Without getting into a constitutional argument again, that was one of the principles upon which this country was founded. How many more rights are you willing to give up for you small piece of temporary freedom?

If you don't see the nescessity of keeping big brothers nose out of private communications, then shame on you.

And if you believe that the government should be given the authority automatically because they will always act in our best interest and no one will ever abuse the system... what else do you believe in? Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy?

Rob

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Benji F.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I was correct; and at least I know how to spell "consistent" when foaming at the mouth.

Rob, I understand your anxiety re: governmental monitoring of private communications, and I too do not want to reignite the debate, but I don't understand a part of your earlier comment, to wit: that you find it reprehensible that your gov't is monitoring communications around the world, but that you're glad in this case that something good came out of it (presumably the protection of thousands of lives.) If the outcome of the monitoring was so good (and it obviously was) does that not mean that said monitoring is necessary and worthwhile, and the opposite of "reprehensible?"

You find facts to be troublesome so you criticise my spelling?

"foaming at the mouth"???

I suggest you look in a mirror to find the RABID knee jerk NEO conservative.

You are still consistently wrong!!!

R

Jude, monitoring terrorists' communications (and their financial dealings--everything) around the world is a damn good thing!

Oh, and at least Rob can spell now (save for the word "criticize"). Too many exclamation points, though.

[ August 11, 2006, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

LOL! Don't worry, there are any number of others who'd fight you over that old schmata.

So - I guess that makes you the "Punch?" eek!

Hmmm....isn't it sad that an hour after I heard this I was already thinking about the convinient timing of such a bust? I guess the government decided Americans weren't swayed by the issuing of unfocused color upgrades and meaningless warnings (somethings going to happen somewhere in the near future).

Disalussionment with American government complete. Way to go politicians.

Yeah, Bush contacted Scotland Yard and MI5 and had them make the arrest now.

You're unbelievable. To even think that this arrest is political is just ridiculous. And sad. Never mind the fact that those arrested had tickets for flights scheduled TODAY and TOMORROW! Never mind the fact that it was British authorities who decided to act NOW because of how close to fruition these attacks were.

The naivete and ignorance of the young.

[ August 11, 2006, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Yes, paranoia is a terrible thing indeed.

"This is no social crisis, just another tricky day for you." frown

Would you kindly provide a link because everything I have read so far says NO tickets had actually been purchased, just schedules found.

ABC World News Tonight reported this on today's evening edition. In fact, it led to a story that Charlie Gibson focused on entitled, "Who are they?", referring to a closer look at the terrorists themselves.

Reported what?

They discussed how close this plot was to being carried out, stating that the terrorists had tickets for flights both today and tomorrow, which prompted British officials to act when they did.

criticise

Crit"i*cise (kr?t"?-s?z), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Criticised (-s?zd); p. pr. & vb. n. Criticising.] [Written also, more analogically, but less commonly, criticize.] [Cf. G. kritisiren. See Critic.] 1. To examine and judge as a critic; to pass literary or artistic judgment upon; as, to criticise an author; to criticise a picture.


Gee imagine that, wrong yet again.

Monitoring terrorist communications is great - no problem.

But that is not what we do. We monitor EVERYONES communications.

Who the hell decides what we do with that huge amount of information?

I am glad you have such explicit trust in the infallable nature of our government and the incorruptability its civil servants.

I don't.

Rob

PS Don't deflect the issue by checking for minor spelling mistakes - just answer the Issue - however difficult that may be for you!!!!!!

[ August 11, 2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Provided today is 8/11/06, I watched the 8/11/06 webcast of World News Tonight by Charles Gibson and they said no such thing.

Proof You are Lying

CNN is also still reporting that no tickets had been purchased as of 45 minutes ago.

Just make it up as you go MIB? Makes debating a little easier for you when the rest of us are relying of facts.




[ August 11, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

I do not lie, HF, as much as you'd like to think I do. I saw the ABC World News Tonight broadcast. I still have it on my TIVO, along with the NBC Nightly News. They simply stated that the suspects had tickets for "flights today and tomorrow."

I have provided documented proof you are lying MIB. It's called a bitch slap.

You might want to explain to folks here that the Webcast is NOT the same as the network broadcast. Nice try, and it's not a bitch slap when YOU are wrong.

Nope, still no reports that tickets were bought, so keep lying MIB.

Additional reports indicated flights were booked for dry runs. The TV news broadcast didn't specify that, though, in today's report.

[ August 11, 2006, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]