ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily

Chinese Immig. Daily

The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 69

Thread: ...

  1. #1

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Prophesies and predictions have been proven to be untrue even if we quote them from the Bible. Only God knows what will happen. Christ Himself doesn't know when exactly the date and time of His return. Let's not be paranoid.

  4. #4

    Predictions may be proven to be untrue, as predictions are from man.

    but profphesy from God cannot be untrue. Prophesy must be fulfilled.

  5. #5
    The claim that American and British security forces have thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up commercial flights between Britain and the United States should not be accepted uncritically.

    It is impossible to determine at this point whether or not such an attack was in the offing, although the mass media have, as usual, reported the assertions of the British and American governments as indisputable fact, without bothering to ask for any specific information that would substantiate the official story.

    The British police statement that the alleged plotters aimed to "create mass murder on an unimaginable scale" by blowing up mid-flight an unspecified number of aircraft is chilling. The far-reaching security measures that have been implemented"”including the shutdown of London's Heathrow Airport and an indefinite ban on carry-on luggage"”add to the climate of fear and apprehension.

    At a time such as this"”in the midst of spectacular claims from London and Washington, a media barrage supporting them, and a massive disruption of commercial flights resulting from extreme security measures"”it is all the more imperative that people not suspend their capacity for critical thought and political judgment.

    Raids in the early hours of Thursday morning on homes and business premises in London and the West Midlands resulted in 21 arrests. Spokesmen for the US and British governments asserted that those arrested were involved in the most significant terrorist plot since 9/11.

    Later reports said that 24 people had been arrested in Britain and more had been detained in Pakistan. Among those arrested were a Muslim charity worker and a Heathrow Airport employee with an all-area access pass, according to Britain's Channel 4 News. Five suspects in the plot are still at large, according to ABC News, which cited US sources.

    BBC News reported Thursday evening that the arrests were the result of a long-standing investigation coordinated between the US, British and Pakistani governments. British Home Secretary John Reid in a press conference earlier on Thursday said Prime Minister Tony Blair had briefed President George Bush on the impending arrests and security measures over the weekend.

    Subsequent reports claimed the plotters had planned to target simultaneously up to ten aircraft from three US carriers by smuggling onboard liquid chemical explosives disguised as beverages or electronic devices.

    US intelligence officials said the plotters hoped to stage a "dry run" today (Friday) and the actual attack would have followed days later. A senior congressional source claimed the plotters planned to mix a sports drink with a peroxide-based paste to make an "explosive cocktail" that could be triggered by an MP3 player or cell phone.

    President George Bush made a brief statement mid-day Thursday that was calculated to heighten public anxieties and exploit the alleged terror plot to justify the panoply of reactionary policies his administration has pursued since 9/11 in the name of the "war on terror."

    Speaking on an airport runway in Green Bay, Wisconsin, he said that the thwarted plot was a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom." He suggested that the plot vindicated the measures"”massive domestic spying, military tribunals, detentions without trial"”taken by his administration to "protect the American people," and went on to warn that "it is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America."

    We have no information that allows us to make a definitive judgment on the existence or non-existence of a terrorist plot on the scale claimed. However, it is the responsibility of the US and British governments to produce the facts that would substantiate their allegations and justify the extreme security measures they have taken, and to present these facts to the public in a clear and concise manner.

    They have produced no such factual account or substantiation.

    Neither the White House nor Downing Street has any right to expect people to accept their claims at face value, or place confidence in any of their statements. The war against Iraq was legitimised on the basis of false claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. These lies have destroyed forever the credibility of Bush and Blair.

    If it is true that such a heinous crime was being planned, the responsibility for this ultimately rests with the policies pursued by Washington and London. Ever since 9/11, both Bush and Blair have employed the mantra of the "war on terror" as a cover for their predatory war aims in the Middle East, immensely intensifying anti-American and anti-British sentiment within the Muslim world. At the same time, the "war on terror" has been used domestically as the pretext for an unprecedented assault on democratic rights.

    Faced with a worsening debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq, and massive international opposition to their support for Israel's devastation of Lebanon, both governments have an interest in perpetuating an atmosphere of hysteria. Such a climate serves to intimidate their opponents and justify ever more draconian measures at home and abroad.

    In point of fact, the official accounts in Britain of the alleged terror plot lack any specific or verifiable facts and are remarkably short on detail. The statements by American officials are no better when it comes to serious substantiation. They are, however, more detailed in their claims.

    US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a televised news conference that the plot was "a very sophisticated plan and operation" and was close to fruition. "It was not a circle with a handful of people sitting around and dreaming,'' he said. "They had accumulated the capability necessary and they were well on their way.''

    The plot appeared to have been aimed at US carriers flying out of Heathrow, he continued. It was "international in scope" and suggestive of Al Qaeda.

    He did not give a specific date for the timing of the plan, but said it may have been before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. "I can't tell you they had a particular date in mind," he said. "Nor can I tell you that they would have waited that long. This was quite close to the execution date."

    Chertoff offered no explanation of how security services knew that a terror attack was imminent when they didn't know the target date for its execution.

    This is by no means the only question mark hanging over official accounts.

    Britain's Home Secretary Reid gave the impression in his press conference that the evidence prompting the arrests came from the UK, and CNN reported that information gathered after recent arrests in Pakistan convinced British investigators they had to act urgently to stop the plot. However, Britain's Channel 4 reported that UK authorities had acted based on intelligence provided by the CIA.

    Moreover, if Blair was in discussions with Bush over the weekend about an "imminent" terrorist attack, why did he still leave for his holiday in Barbados on Tuesday? And given that the plot is said to have targeted planes, why did the security services allow him to do so?

    And if the threat posed by the plot was considered dangerous enough to warrant raising the terror alert in the UK from "severe" to "critical" and to code red in the US, why were no arrests made for five days? And why was the terror alert only raised after the arrests were made and not before?

    No such questions have been asked by the media. And yet recent months have seen a number of alleged terrorist plots"”in the US, Canada and Australia"”that were supposedly thwarted by the security services. In each case, mass arrests were made of people who, according to the indictments, had merely discussed terrorist acts. No concrete plans were discovered, no weapons or explosives seized. And in most of these cases, the supposed plots were initiated and encouraged by government informers who acted as agent provocateurs and entrapped the alleged conspirators.

    In the case of July's so-called "tunnel bomb" plot in New York, the purported conspirators were foreign nationals who had never set foot in the US.

    As for the political utility of the current terror scare, it should be noted that only hours before Thursday's raids, British Home Secretary Reid gave a major speech in London in which he accused opponents of the government's anti-democratic legislation of undermining the "war on terror."

    In the face of what he called "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second world war," Reid decried those who "don't get it," blaming them for the fact that "we remain unable to adapt our institutions and legal orthodoxy as fast as we need to.

    "Making it clear that the required "adaptation" meant the gutting of traditional democratic rights, he added: "Sometimes we may have to modify some of our own freedoms in the short term in order to prevent their misuse and abuse by those who oppose our fundamental values and would destroy all of our freedoms in the modern world."

  6. #6
    Quoting from or MotherJones or even Cindy Sheehan should be treated more as fiction than factual. Most security analysts believed the plot was real as well as the terror threat.

    British authorities said Aug. 10 they thwarted a militant Islamist plot to attack as many as 10 U.S.-bound passenger jets flying out of London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports. They also said they are taking extraordinary measures at British airports, such as banning carry-on luggage on trans-Atlantic flights. Liquids such as toiletry items and drinks and some small consumer electronic devices also are being banned.

    Media outlets are reporting that the operation would have caused an unimaginable catastrophe. Such an operation, however, was both imaginable and practicable. Indeed, a very similar operation -- called Operation Bojinka -- had been planned in 1994.

    After his participation in the first World Trade Center bombing, Abdel Basit (also know by the name on his fraudulent Iraqi passport, Ramzi Yousef) settled down in Manila, Philippines. He assembled a cell of operatives who began to plan a long list of terrorist attacks. One of those was Operation Bojinka, a plan to simultaneously destroy 12 airliners en route to the United States from Asian cities.

    Basit and his cell developed a modular improvised device constructed of a doll stuffed with nitrocellulose, a detonator and a timer made from a modified Casio wris****ch. Once through screening and on the plane, the devices were to be assembled in the aircraft's restroom.

    On Dec. 11, 1994, the cell tested its device on Philippine Airlines flight 434. It detonated, but did not bring down the plane. In fact it killed one only person and wounded 10 -- not the spectacular results the militants had hoped for. Based on their test results, they went back to the drawing board and decided to augment their main charge with a liquid form of an acetone peroxide explosive, which they were going to place in contact lens solution bottles. This additional quantity of a powerful explosive would be sure to give them the added punch they needed. However, while brewing the liquid explosive they lost control of the reaction and their apartment caught fire. One of Basit's laptop computers was recovered from the apartment and the plans for Bojinka were discovered. Basit left the Philippines and fled to Pakistan, where he later tried to continue the plot. He was in the process of implementing it when one of his bombers got cold feet and turned him in.

    Based on this history, and the example of convicted "shoe bomber"ť Richard Reid, a plot like the one thwarted Aug. 10 in Britain is not far-fetched. It is very much within the capabilities of al Qaeda and smaller independent jihadist groups. Also, when viewed through this historical lens, it is easy to understand why authorities made the decision to ban liquids and small electronic items from the passenger cabins. Indeed, nearly five years after Sept. 11 and Reid's attempted attack, civil aviation is still vulnerable. Such attacks are not that difficult to plan and execute and there are many ways that explosives can be concealed in addition to liquids. Once liquids are banned from planes, jihadists will find another alternative.

    The Bojinka plan called for the plotters to board flights with multiple legs, hide the devices and then jump off before the devices activated. The current plot, however, almost certainly was designed to use suicide operatives, because of the airports and the flights -- direct to the United States -- involved. With as many as 10 flights reportedly being targeted, that meant they had identified and trained at least 10 suicide operatives.

    Though that is only half the number of operatives involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, it is nonetheless a significant number of suicide operatives for a single mission. When combined with the number and types of targets involved -- al Qaeda is fixated on aircraft -- it does appear as if this current operation was connected to al Qaeda. There are claims that the detainees are British citizens of Pakistani origin, revealing that al Qaeda's London management team was still largely intact following the July 2005 attacks against London's transit system.

    Many questions remain, such as why the authorities waited as long as they did to wrap up this plot -- seemingly at the last minute. There are two possible explanations for this: First, because this was a very big and complex operation, it took authorities longer to identify all the operatives involved. They did not want to miss any of the suicide operatives, planners or bombmakers, and leave them free to strike another day. This difficulty might have been further complicated by al Qaeda involvement, as the group practices better operational security than grassroots cells and it would have made it harder (and taken longer) for the informant and the authorities to connect all the dots and identify all the components of the organization. The British government still is embarrassed that it was unable to identify all the elements of the 2005 Underground bombings, so there would be an incredible amount of pressure on investigators to make sure they identified all of them this time.

    Second, the informant might not have come forward until the operation was well under way. The informant very possibly is one of the suicide operatives who got cold feet and changed his mind. He might not have made the decision to bail out of the operation until quite late in the game, and then it took the British government some additional time to verify the threat, identify the other elements of the cell and then swoop in and arrest them.

    Either way, somewhere in the attack cycle there was a serious breakdown in operational security -- and the plot was thwarted. These arrests demonstrate the threat remains very real. One of two other factors also is in play, however. Either the British government's counterterrorism efforts are sufficiently robust as to allow them to penetrate al Qaeda operations in some instance at least, or, as we have discussed in the past, al Qaeda's operational security has been degraded. Either way, penetration is now more possible -- raising the possibility that, though al Qaeda remains a threat, it is not the strategic threat it once was.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

  7. #7
    People here are now becoming stupid and paranoid. They have all these high tech/state of the art testing equipment but they will not allow the workers to bring in food either.
    They only announced no "liquids" or "gels" but they say you can hide things in food also. So I can not bring in a $1 sandwich but I can buy a $5 sandwich at the stores
    upstairs. But actually things might get worse. I don't worry about what may happen. But the scary part of this foiled plot is one of the people conspiring to do it was an airport employee. No matter what country a person comes from nobody is 100% safe and security has to think smarter and not be so paranoid.

  8. #8
    The government is caught in a no win battle with public opinion. On the one hand, any measure would be viewed upon as paranoid from somep groups; however, if the government does nothing, some groups would claim the government as inept, weak, fearful, etc.

    Although some measures may be deemed unpractical, inconvenient, etc, at least these measures will be temporary until more detailed plans and training takes place.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

  9. #9
    Those who don't believe in conspiracy theories should think again. There's a deeper reason that we may not know. The timing was just suspicious. These things happened in the past only to find out they were wrong and false. Those who know how intelligence groups work and the covert operations they do on the higher level understand what I'm saying.

  10. #10
    Somebody is very stubbornly and consistently trying to turn this immigration board into 'conspiracy/lunacy theories' board

    How after that you can claim not to be a donkey?

    [COLOR:BLUE][B]When the creations of a genius collide with the mind of a layman, and produce an empty sound, there is little doubt as to which is at fault.

    One day it will have to be officially admitted that

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: