How more evidence do we need that the so-called "War on Terror" creates terror?

Here's the math: for every division we send to Iraq, we need to train another 1,000 FBI detectives just to take care of the new terrorists the mere presence of that division will spawn.

If Democrats are smart (sigh...), this will allow them to point out that the War on Terror as imagined by BushCheneyRove & Lieberman is a failure (are you listening, Ned?). The fly-paper "fight them there so we don't have to fight them over there" theory has been disproved, time and again, with hundreds of casualties from Bali to Madrid to London. Thank God this one was stopped, by Intelligence services, not the military.

Here is the state of aviation security in this country today:

Thursday, August 10th, 2006

---------------------------------------------------

Due to the uncovering of a terrorist plot this morning in Britain to blow up US-bound commercial airliners in mid-air, the US Department of Homeland Security has raised the terror threat level to Orange (High). Because of the Code Orange alert, the Transportation Security Administration has banned certain items from being taken aboard carry-on luggage on

All flights operating in or to the United States:

· all beverages

· shampoo

· suntan lotion

· creams

· toothpaste

· hair gel

· other items of similar consistency

In addition, even greater security measures have been implemented for

All flights between the United States and the United Kingdom:

Nothing may be carried in passengers' pockets. Also, handbags i.e. women’s purses, laptop bags, camera cases and similar items are not allowed for carry on.

Passengers may only take through the airport security checkpoint, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag the following items:

· pocket size wallets and pocket size purses plus contents (money, credit cards, identity cards, etc.)

· travel documents essential for the journey (passports and travel tickets)

· prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (a diabetic kit for example), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic.

· spectacles and sunglasses, without cases

· contact lens holders, without bottles of solution

· for those traveling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (wipes, creams, disposal bags)

· female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed

· tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs

· keys (but no electrical key fobs)

· There will be no liquids or gels allowed to/from the UK. Duty free from the UK will not be allowed, however, duty free onboard will continue.

All UK transiting passengers will be required to check any carry-ons they bring to the airport regardless of origination. For passengers who have already left the US and will be connecting in the UK, they will not be allowed to use the transit area in the UK airports and will be routed back to the ticket counters to check their carry-on luggage.

Because of the increased security, delays of two hours or more are being reported at most major US airports.

Bush asked travelers to "be patient and be vigilant" as "we take the steps necessary to protect our people."

Why haven't Bush and Chertoff already taken "the steps"? And where has Lieberman, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, been all this time?

DR. RICE: Steve, I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.

If patriotism is the last vestige of a scoundrel, so is an ineffective and politically motivated war on terror.

I want everyone to stop and consider for a moment how much of America's resources have been squandered in Iraq and how useful they would have been to fund counter-terrorism operations.

Shameful Republican mismanagement.

I'd like one of the scientifically competent around here to speculate what was the likely plan given the list of banned items and their containers??

Ivo,

And when the UK government found that some laws (e.g., on the duration of detention) might interfere with effective investigations and actions, it has sought to change the law through established parliamentary procedures rather than to ignore it as Bush has been wont to do.

I think it's much less about process than it is about what procedures are finally adopted. After all, many of Hitler's "laws" were introduced legally.

The UK system is quite a bit different from that in the US and so Blair had no option but to have Parliament change the laws. However, that doesn't mean that Blair and Co. aren't engaging in a a systematic reduction of human rights quite similar to Bush. Like Bush, Blair is driven mainly by the faux notion of free and open markets in which personal freedoms are of little importance. Terrorism provides a convenient way of moving that agenda forward. To think that we are in Iraq actually to fight terrorism is surely naive.

Nor are the UK security forces and police above bending the rules at will. Think of the shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland and then recall recent UK police abuses in which an innocent man was shot to death on the London undergound; another man was shot after police broke into his house in the early hours on evidence that turned out to be entirely without basis. Blair is also pushing an extremely intrusive ID card scheme and using the threat of terrorist acts as the reason.

I really think that comparing favorably the recent record of the UK with that of the US is a stretch too far and is almost entirely irrelevant.

Further, as many Britains think, it is Bush who is calling the shots there as well as in the USA - for example, consider the probably correct rumour that Jack Straw was removed as Foreign Secretary because his constituency in Blackburn contains many Muslims. In other words, actually listening to Muslim views is in itself a fault. Certainly, Straw declaring that an attack on Iran was "nuts" did him no favors with Bush. But, again, terrorism isn't the main agenda. Ask the Lebanese.

They have a history of using Nitroglycerin but given that it's very hard to transport without setting it off it was probably something derived from Acetate (nail polish remover) and Peroxide (Hair bleach) which can provide a pretty powerful explosion if manipulated in certain ways.

And virtually every Dem supported the war in Afganistan. I'm not saying do away with the military, just use the correct tools when needed.

In reality I would say that was the only time conventional military warfare was needed in the "War on Terror"

It's fairly clear that the ELDORADO CANYON raid on Libya started a chain of changes in Khadaffi's behavior.  hcberkowitz

Sure did; got him to raise the stakes.

Operation Eldorado Canyon (4/15/1986); Pam Am Flight 103 Lockerbie (12/21/1988) 

I think the odds that the British "plot" that was foiled was actually what they are saying it was are about 1 in 10.  Much more likely this is like the Miami terrorist ring that had no money, no plans, no weapons, etc.   But, this does offer Tony Blair a big political boost, and will soon offer the same to Bush.  Anyone who believes a word spoken by our or the British government about "terrorism" is incredibly naive.

Some time back it was suggested that all airline passengers should be required to fly nude, for security reasons.   We get closer and closer and closer to that. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Liquid explosives. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4780391.stm

Perhaps we'd be even closer, if they hadn't gone out of business. OTOH, there are charters...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Ivo,

Perhaps Bush and Cheney do not take intelligence seriously, but that is not terrible considering they do not do the work. I'm happy that the men and women of our intelligence communities DO take their work seriously and work very hard.

Ivo,

Perhaps, but if a plot were to succeed the responsibility would would fall squarely on their shoulders. A sitting president will naturally take credit when something horrible is averted. This is certainly not unique to the Bush administration.

Perhaps this scare will motivate the administration to increase its budgetary alottment to intelligence and defense.

The most important single reason that the U.S. is subject to terrorist attacks by Muslim jihadists is because of our support of Israel. That has produced immense hatred of the United States in the Muslim world. Just look at what is happening in Lebanon. The Muslim women and children are being killed by American bombs dropped from American planes. And the whole thing is being financed by American money and supported by the Bush administration and a U.S. Congress that justifies the action. In light of this the desire for revenge on the U.S. by the jihadists is in no way surprising.

Of course, while this is the most important single reason, it is not the only reason. Our unprovoked war of agression on Iraq is another major reason. And the thing that ticked off Osama was that there were Infidel (American) troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, which is the guardian of the Muslim shrines. Leaving U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after desert storm was over was a major blunder.

Shameful Republican mismanagement.

It's only shameful if you are't making money off it. Just think, if you'd had the fore-sight to start a private security firm, invest in oil or weapons, or invest in the appropriate congressional representation you would be rolling in money.
(sarcasm. sorry)

Bush's good friends, the Saud family of Saudi Arabia support many, many schools in Islamic countries where people are taught to hate our country, as well as western countries in general.  That can't be helping our image in those countries.  But, to say that any one thing or even a few things explain why Middle Eastern terrorists are willing to die to kill some of us is just not likely to be accurate.  What we can certainly say is that if we truly approached the Middle East in a neutral way, it would have to be beneficial to our country.  And, if we were to treat people who have different religious beliefs with as much kindness as we treat those who believe as we do, that too would have to be beneficial to our country.  Finally, if we were to stop propping up unpopular governments in the Middle East, such as the Saud family, that would be highly likely to benefit our country.  So, I think it is safe to say the Bush administration is striking out.

And, before someone mentions oil:  cheap oil, providing massive profits for US oil companies is not necessarily beneficial to our country, and most likely is detrimental to our future. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

As I said, our support for Israel is not the only reason that we are subject to terrorist threats. Yes, Wahabbiism and schools that teach this toxic, evil version of Islam are another reason. But actions do speak louder than words, and bombs dropping on women and children have a more powerful effect on people's minds than the teaching of any mullah.

Incidentally, I do not advocate an anti-Israeli policy. Rather, I advocate a genuinely even handed policy in dealing with the disputes between Israel and the Arab world.

In addition, even greater security measures have been implemented for

All flights between the United States and the United Kingdom:

...

· contact lens holders, without bottles of solution

Do they really open contact lens kits and verify there's no solution inside? I thought there were lenses that need to stay immersed in fluid or they will dry up.

I highly doubt that Bush's foreign policy team have thought long and hard about the application of this label to terrorists

I'm hopeful that it is the result of somebody in the Bush administration thinking long and hard about how to move perceptions from a "war on terrorism" and "disarming Sadaam" towards a "war on tyranny" that can actually be won.

The term fascism is used very generically and loosely by the left to describe all sorts of opponents of democracy. It is rather less popular on the right, for obvious reasons.

The term "islamo-fascism" has been consciously promoted by Christopher Hitchens and others in the (tiny) pro-war left to resonate with traditional left positions and remind people that the pseudo-left's support for "stability" and hostility to liberating Iraq and insistence on just "fighting terrorists" is directly contrary to those traditions.

In the initial phases of the war on tyranny it was critical to paralyse and confuse the right wing isolationists and the dominant "stability" consensus of the US foreign policy establishment who could have blocked the democratic transformation of the Middle East if they had not been conned into it by pretending the invasion of Iraq was just about WMDs rather than about "region change".

The fact that this paralysed any significant left support for the war didn't matter much.

Hopefully, in giving the pro-war lefts position more space in the public discourse, the Bushies are moving on.

I've noticed some other signs of this, such as publicity for the "Euston Manifesto" in mainstream media.

Too early to tell, but its unwise to assume that introduction of new terminology is done casually, without long and hard thought by somebody.

Remember how consciously and carefully the gradual transition from "disarming Sadaam" to "spreading democracy" was made, while still retaining the overall cognitavely dissonant concept of a "Global War on Terror" that has far more appeal to the right than to the left.

One could almost forget that the entire pre-war mobilization was framed in terms of "disarming Sadaam", so complete has the transition been. It was certainly conscious, even to the extent of deliberately playing down the belated discovery of some chemical munitions to avoid going off message, when those would have been trumpeted as "proof" if they had been found earlier when the message was about WMDs.

Hopefully, the shift towards describing the enemy as "islamic fascists" rather than "islamic fundamentalists" and "islamic terrorists" reflects a conscious re-framing towards a war that can achieve greater support from the left.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

For those young men willing to become suicide bombers religion is likely to be a major issue. Secular types are not likely to be willing to be suicide bombers.