UK terror plot aborted

[BubberMiley]

Better to have the best jihadis tied up fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving the less effective ones to fail in attack attempts elsewhere.

That would be better, but it sounds incredibly naive.

[jbg]

Better to have the best jihadis tied up fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving the less effective ones to fail in attack attempts elsewhere.

That would be better, but it sounds incredibly naive.

Not really. There are only so many people willing to die for "the cause" anywhere.

[jdobbin]

Not really. There are only so many people willing to die for "the cause" anywhere.

They seem have lots of British willing to do it.

[Wilber]

Part of the mission in Afghanistan still is, unfortunately Bush let himself get sidetracked in Iraq. Are we safer from the likes of Al Qaeda since 9/11? Yes I think so. Is our little world a safer place? Maybe not but it never was as safe as we let ourselves believe.

Most military and security experts say the world is not more secure and in fact is less secure. Many of the world's terrorists are being trained now in Pakistan, a U.S. ally. And this is where Osama bin Laden is supposed to be hiding.

Obviously we weren't more secure before 9/11. If we were there wouldn't have been a 9/11. Before they were being trained in Afghanistan. You made a big point about the roll the Pakistani government played in uncovering this latest plot. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was actively supporting Al Qaeda. Blaming the government and all the people of Pakistan for the activities of Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil is the much the same as blaming the government and all of the people of Lebanon for the activities of Hezbollah on Lebanese soil.

[jdobbin]

Obviously we weren't more secure before 9/11. If we were there wouldn't have been a 9/11. Before they were being trained in Afghanistan. You made a big point about the roll the Pakistani government played in uncovering this latest plot. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was actively supporting Al Qaeda. Blaming the government and all the people of Pakistan for the activities of Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil is the much the same as blaming the government and all of the people of Lebanon for the activities of Hezbollah on Lebanese soil.

I didn't make the point that they uncovered the plot.

[BubberMiley]

Not really. There are only so many people willing to die for "the cause" anywhere.

There are over a billion muslims in the world. 9/11 required 19 of them. Your finite number changes whenever Israel bombs a neighbourhood and surviving family members with nothing left to lose become enraged enough to die for "the cause." To think that you can bomb, from a distance, all those who would die for Islam is not only ridiculous but scary to the point of psychopathic.

[jbg]

Not really. There are only so many people willing to die for "the cause" anywhere.

There are over a billion muslims in the world. 9/11 required 19 of them. Your finite number changes whenever Israel bombs a neighbourhood and surviving family members with nothing left to lose become enraged enough to die for "the cause." To think that you can bomb, from a distance, all those who would die for Islam is not only ridiculous but scary to the point of psychopathic.

That's somewhat misleading. There's the small matter of identifying them for the "cause", making sure they're reliable, and training them. Since they're not useful on later missions, they probably go through a lot of people.

[Wilber]

Obviously we weren't more secure before 9/11. If we were there wouldn't have been a 9/11. Before they were being trained in Afghanistan. You made a big point about the roll the Pakistani government played in uncovering this latest plot. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was actively supporting Al Qaeda. Blaming the government and all the people of Pakistan for the activities of Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil is the much the same as blaming the government and all of the people of Lebanon for the activities of Hezbollah on Lebanese soil.

I didn't make the point that they uncovered the plot.

My mistake, sorry about that.

[KrustyKidd]

Why haven't they found Osama?

In order to do so you would have to kill an awful lot of people in villages to get to him. Torture some loyal supporters who have family to lose and such in order to get the info and generally invade a country and stir up a hornets nest. In all, probably have to kill about two thousand people, create another front and lose an ally. OBL isn't worth that.

Actually, it's a reminder that the militarist angle of the war on terror has been overplayed, leaving the people on the real front lines-police, intelligence services-with a much harder job.

Not really. The military aspect is to change the conditions which allow terrorist to have appeal. When people have nothing to lose they are easier to recruit. If they have more on earth, they look less to heaven. Al Queda and terrorists know that and is the main reason why they don't wish to see Iraq become a success. If they thought the US was wrong by invading Iraq they would have just let them stay there in peace and watch things work out for the Iraqis. Intelligence and military action is importent. Just as finance and rebuilding is.

There are over a billion muslims in the world. 9/11 required 19 of them.

911 required over a hundred and possibly up to three hundred. Those guys lived here and required safe houses and covers, money in huge amounts that had to be sent in smal amounts to non descript stores and Western Union counters and then reconstituted into tens of thousands, had to be visited by clerecs, even had to be flown home at certain points. Internet and communications had to be supplied as well as transport. Rehearsals, tickets, flight and travel arrangements along with liasons with the other teams whom they knew noting about. It required a complex and large support team(s) to pull off. All under the watch of US intelligence. That was the main feat of 911 was how they did all this without being detected.

[jbg]

911 required over a hundred and possibly up to three hundred. Those guys lived here and required safe houses and covers, money in huge amounts that had to be sent in smal amounts to non descript stores and Western Union counters and then reconstituted into tens of thousands, had to be visited by clerecs, even had to be flown home at certain points. Internet and communications had to be supplied as well as transport. Rehearsals, tickets, flight and travel arrangements along with liasons with the other teams whom they knew noting about. It required a complex and large support team(s) to pull off. All under the watch of US intelligence. That was the main feat of 911 was how they did all this without being detected.

I'm generally pro-Bush but the one thing he hasn't done too well, IMHO, is to "follow the money". These operations, as you point out, are not cheap, and the source of the funding should be of great interest in countries where the bulk of the people live in misery and ignorance.

[BubberMiley]

911 required over a hundred and possibly up to three hundred. It required a complex and large support team(s) to pull off.

They may have had a large and complex support team, but all they really needed was a relatively small amount of money for flight school and plane fare, and the necessary idiots to pull it off. You can buy box-cutters at the dollar store. Most of the idiots didn't even need to know they were going to die (and according to OBL, they didn't).

[jbg]

911 required over a hundred and possibly up to three hundred. It required a complex and large support team(s) to pull off.

They may have had a large and complex support team, but all they really needed was a relatively small amount of money for flight school and plane fare, and the necessary idiots to pull it off. You can buy box-cutters at the dollar store. Most of the idiots didn't even need to know they were going to die (and according to OBL, they didn't).

They needed enough money to keep the people and their families quiet, happy and entertained. That could have been quite a substantial amount.

[BubberMiley]

They needed enough money to keep the people and their families quiet, happy and entertained. That could have been quite a substantial amount.

Did the terrorists have families? I thought they were a bunch of unmarried 20-somethings living in cheap apartments. In any case, 19 guys with boxcutters and a minimal amount of skill pulled off the worst terrorist act in history. The U.S. could have bombed Florida, Germany, and even Saudi Arabia in response, but that probably wouldn't have made them more secure.

[KrustyKidd]

They may have had a large and complex support team, but all they really needed was a relatively small amount of money for flight school and plane fare, and the necessary idiots to pull it off. You can buy box-cutters at the dollar store.

A large and complex support team for sure. To get five guys rehearsed and onto a plane as well as knowing what they are doing. They were in country for over a year and a half and, to prevent them from doubting their missions, they had to have visits every now and then from a cleric (who was on a wanted list) to keep them motivated as well as be flown home so they wouldn't become westernized. Remember, a well placed penny bullet takes a lot of money to get to the battlefeild with support from administration, traiining, money, politicians, taxpayers, distribution, cooks, pilots, big airplanes, ships etc. To simplify it to say they were 'idiot's is to discount the actual threat Al Qeda poses. And, all this was done without the teams knowing of each other's existance until the end.

I'm generally pro-Bush but the one thing he hasn't done too well, IMHO, is to "follow the money". These operations, as you point out, are not cheap, and the source of the funding should be of great interest in countries where the bulk of the people live in misery and ignorance.

That is the point, the money (which is estimated to be between two and five hundred thousand) had to be sent in amounts of of huindreds to avoid alerting anybody and be untraceable. That's a lot of undetected trips to the quickiemart by a lot of different people.

[GostHacked]

In order to do so you would have to kill an awful lot of people in villages to get to him. Torture some loyal supporters who have family to lose and such in order to get the info and generally invade a country and stir up a hornets nest. In all, probably have to kill about two thousand people, create another front and lose an ally. OBL isn't worth that.

But Afghanistan and Iraq were worth it? I thought OBL orchestrated 9/11? Get those guys in the caves with the box cutters and liquid explosives before they strike again! The US wanted Osama soooo bad they invaded 2 countries over it and yet still have to capture him. I guess once you work for the CIA you cannot actually leave the CIA. Osama was on the CIA payroll when the US supported the Muhajedeen to ward off the Soviets. Come on you are either with us or against us! I wonder who's side Osama is on then.

Which brings me to this

I'm generally pro-Bush but the one thing he hasn't done too well, IMHO, is to "follow the money". These operations, as you point out, are not cheap, and the source of the funding should be of great interest in countries where the bulk of the people live in misery and ignorance.

This is a good question. With all the surveilance on world financial transactions (and don't kid yourself, everything that is electronic is being monitored) youn think that they would have noticed the money flowing. But again, why have they not been able to capture Osama? Is he not the worst terrrorist in the world?

And you don't need a large team. You can compartmentalize it all. For example, I can work on a terror plot, only inform a couple people of my intentions, but only give them a small peice of anything they need to know. They together may know everything, but not knowing what each other knows, I can control every aspect of the plot. I have 5 guys and give them specific instuctions, each one does their job without knowing what the job is of the other. You can easily do this. It is not that hard.

So you would not need alot of people involved in the scheme.

[jbg]

They needed enough money to keep the people and their families quiet, happy and entertained. That could have been quite a substantial amount.

Did the terrorists have families? I thought they were a bunch of unmarried 20-somethings living in cheap apartments. In any case, 19 guys with boxcutters and a minimal amount of skill pulled off the worst terrorist act in history. The U.S. could have bombed Florida, Germany, and even Saudi Arabia in response, but that probably wouldn't have made them more secure.

Brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers are potential people who would know what their relative was doing and might not be crazy about it, unless bought off.

[KrustyKidd]

But Afghanistan and Iraq were worth it? I thought OBL orchestrated 9/11? Get those guys in the caves with the box cutters and liquid explosives before they strike again! The US wanted Osama soooo bad they invaded 2 countries over it and yet still have to capture him. I guess once you work for the CIA you cannot actually leave the CIA. Osama was on the CIA payroll when the US supported the Muhajedeen to ward off the Soviets. Come on you are either with us or against us! I wonder who's side Osama is on then.

One of the objectives was to capture OBL. The main reason was to destroy or curtail Al Qeda effectiveness and entrenchment in Afganistan which happened. The guys in caves did not have box cutters but were trained and armed with military weapons. The US as I said could kill him however, would need to also take out a lot of men women and children in order to do it as he is firmly hidden by loyal tribesmen. As for him being supported by the US during the Soviet occupation, we also supported the Soviets during WWII. Then after, we were enemies. Changing directions is hardly new. Keeping the same when former allies become a threat is idiocy.

This is a good question. With all the surveilance on world financial transactions (and don't kid yourself, everything that is electronic is being monitored) youn think that they would have noticed the money flowing. But again, why have they not been able to capture Osama? Is he not the worst terrrorist in the world?

The transactions were all minicular and designed to go under the radar which is why they neded lots of people. A single or couple of large transactions most certainly would have alerted the intelligence agencies. I answered the OBL point above.

And you don't need a large team. You can compartmentalize it all. For example, I can work on a terror plot, only inform a couple people of my intentions, but only give them a small peice of anything they need to know. They together may know everything, but not knowing what each other knows, I can control every aspect of the plot. I have 5 guys and give them specific instuctions, each one does their job without knowing what the job is of the other. You can easily do this. It is not that hard.

So you would not need alot of people involved in the scheme.

Al Qeda Timeline

This is fairly complicated and involves a lot of travel, back tracking and meetings. Hardly the simple affair you make it out to be. Rather detailed and long, it does provide a more complex view into the care and planning taken to get the simple morons with exacto knives onto a plane.

You could easily do what you say, but who is going to check to make sure this is all to plan when most of the English speaking operatives are known to intelligence agencies? The same person going from one country to another would be followed hence, you ned to have different people doing the same task at different times. Your communications are monitored so you need to have couriers delivering cell phones and new web addresses. You cannot do this easily from a cave in Afganistan and, not only that but, the integrity of the motivation of the operatives is always at risk as they are not directly under your watch, hence, the need for known clerics to check on them and remotivate when necessary. A year and a half is a long time to be under cover and in the midst of western society. As well, one weak point in all this could give the plot away, a plot that they have invested considerable time, money and effort into.

You seem to think that having operatives and support teams running undetected or below the radar of the best intelligence agencies in the world for over a year and a half is no feat. All as you said not knowing what each other knows. Then get them home and back during this period to remotivate them without raising any red flags.

[BubberMiley]

Brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers are potential people who would know what their relative was doing and might not be crazy about it, unless bought off.

I don't think anyone was ever told anything they didn't need to know.

[Shady]

I'm generally pro-Bush but the one thing he hasn't done too well, IMHO, is to "follow the money". These operations, as you point out, are not cheap, and the source of the funding should be of great interest in countries where the bulk of the people live in misery and ignorance.

It becomes even more difficult when you have The New York Times briefing terrorists on what kinds of programs the government is assembling to combat the threat.

[BubberMiley]

It becomes even more difficult when you have The New York Times briefing terrorists on what kinds of programs the government is assembling to combat the threat.

You aren't finished with that ancient talking point, which was a non-issue to start with?

[Shady]

You aren't finished with that ancient talking point, which was a non-issue to start with?

How is it an "ancient" talking point, and why is a non-issue? I disagree with your premise.

[BubberMiley]

How is it an "ancient" talking point, and why is a non-issue? I disagree with your premise.

It's from months ago, and it's a non-issue because all the NYT said was that the government was monitoring financial transactions. We already knew that.

[Black Dog]

Be sceptical. Be very sceptical.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

[Wilber]

The Center for Research on Globalization?

Ah, another globalization conspiracy and after all we do know the Bush government engineered 9/11. That explains it.

These people were arrested and if charged, will be tried in Britain.

Unlike Pakistan and 90% of the countries in that part of the world, these people will be subject to a justice system where torture is not allowed, is not controlled by the government and in which they will have to be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Shady]

How is it an "ancient" talking point, and why is a non-issue? I disagree with your premise.

It's from months ago, and it's a non-issue because all the NYT said was that the government was monitoring financial transactions. We already knew that.

Nonsense. I would hardly call a couple of months ago, "ancient". Of course we knew that financial transactions were being monitored. But we didn't know the details, until The New York Times decided to out a legal, covert program under the guise of news.