Al-Qaeda's Heathrow jet plot revealed

[gilliam]

AL-QAEDA terrorists planned to hijack a passenger jet from eastern Europe and fly it into a packed terminal at Heathrow airport, killing hundreds of people, security sources have revealed. The plot, which was taken so seriously that ministers considered shutting down the airport, helps to resolve the long-standing mystery of why Tony Blair ordered armoured vehicles and hundreds of troops to be sent to Heathrow in 2003.

It has now emerged that MI5 received detailed intelligence in February 2003 about a two-pronged plan to target Britain because of its decision to send troops in support of America’s invasion of Iraq. The second element of the operation, inspired by Osama Bin Laden, involved a mortar attack on a departing passenger plane. It was organised by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al-Qaeda operations chief and mastermind of the September 11 attacks, the sources said.

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2087-1817244,00.html

 

[MikeWM]

It has now emerged that MI5 received detailed intelligence in February 2003 about a two-pronged plan to target Britain because of its decision to send troops in support of America’s invasion of Iraq.

I wonder how much longer Tony Blair is going to maintain that Britain’s actions over Iraq have had no impact on making the UK a target for Al-Qaeda terrorism? As Conservative leadership candidate Ken Clarke has said: “he must be the only person left [in Britain] who thinks that”.

The British people were in the main opposed to invading Iraq. We are now in increased danger from terrorists because our leaders ignored us. Wonderful.

Mike

 

[gilliam]

*It has now emerged that MI5 received detailed intelligence in February 2003 *

We liberated Iraq in March 2003

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

We liberated Iraq in March 2003

No, we invaded Iraq in 2003.

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

The British people were in the main opposed to invading Iraq. We are now in increased danger from terrorists because our leaders ignored us. Wonderful.

Mike

Are you certain that Bin Laden liked Blair before the war? 9/11 took loads of time to plan. It reads to me that they already had plans against the UK before the decision to go to war.

 

[walstan]

rlg94086:

Are you certain that Bin Laden liked Blair before the war? 9/11 took loads of time to plan. It reads to me that they already had plans against the UK before the decision to go to war.

Lets try this again:

It has now emerged that MI5 received detailed intelligence in February 2003 about a two-pronged plan to target Britain because of its decision to send troops in support of America’s invasion of Iraq.

---

OK?

 

[mjdonnelly]

Yeah sure, Osama and Blair were buddies before Blair betrayed him to the evil American empire.

They hate US and British citizens because of our existance and culture. Any “plausible” reason they can come up with to attack either country will be used to try and obtain some semblence of credibility.

 

[rlg94086]

mjdonnelly:

Yeah sure, Osama and Blair were buddies before Blair betrayed him to the evil American empire.

They hate US and British citizens because of our existance and culture. Any “plausible” reason they can come up with to attack either country will be used to try and obtain some semblence of credibility.

Indeed. Someone seems to have had a wee in Walstan’s Cheerios this morning, so I’ll chalk his sarcasm up to the start of a bad day.

Here’s a snippet of a November 2001 article in the Telegraph portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml …

Bin Laden goes on to justify his entire terror campaign. “There are two types of terror, good and bad. What we are practising is good terror. We will not stop killing them and whoever supports them.”
He directly threatens the lives of President Bush and Mr Blair. “Bush and Blair don’t understand anything but the power of force. Every time they kill us, we kill them, so the balance of terror can be achieved.” He also calls on all Muslims to join him. “It is the duty of every Muslim to fight. Killing Jews is top priority.”

 

[MikeWM]

No-one is arguing that Bin Laden was keen on the idea of bombing the UK before Iraq. Nevertheless, the very report quoted says specificially:

target Britain because of its decision to send troops in support of America’s invasion of Iraq.

I don’t know why the report says this specificially, but given that it does, it seems clear that they believe this to be the reason why.

Mike

 

[walstan]

mjdonnelly:

They hate US and British citizens because of our existance and culture.

This is quite true, in fact it’s the same reason we hate them, because of their, “Existance” and “Culture”. Interesting conundrum isn’t it? They hate us because we hate them!

Now everyone can enter into the argument, they started with 9/11,… No…No we started it with Palestine, No…No… they started it with the Ottoman Empire, No… No…they starteds it with the Crusades,…ad infinitum. The whole point of the issue is not who started what, but WHO IS PREPARED TO END WHAT.

All of these issues are based on one simple premise, HATE. They HATE us, we HATE them, they HATE what we stand for, we HATE what they stand for etc. etc.

Jesus’ answer was very simple:

"You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It is a very simple lesson, treat others with respect and they will (eventually) treat you the same. Treat the Arab nations with respect, and you will win over the vast majority who will see terrorism for what it really is. It’s called HEARTS and MINDS, to defeat terrorism you have to elliminate their support in their own community, you can’t do that by appearing to wage war on them.

 

[abcdefg]

walstan:

This is quite true, in fact it’s the same reason we hate them, because of their, “Existance” and “Culture”. Interesting conundrum isn’t it? They hate us because we hate them!
…

We hate terrorists existence because of their nature. not because of their existence. We don’t hate cultures of Iraqi or Afghanistan or Iranian people. we hate the ideology of terrorists which, if it’s a culture, can only be “culture of death”

Do you think we should fight NAZIs? When Jesus talked about love he didn’t mean evil should be left unchecked. If you don’t agree then you’re a pacifist. that’s a different discussion.

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

No-one is arguing that Bin Laden was keen on the idea of bombing the UK before Iraq. Nevertheless, the very report quoted says specificially:

target Britain because of its decision to send troops in support of America’s invasion of Iraq.

I don’t know why the report says this specificially, but given that it does, it seems clear that they believe this to be the reason why.

Mike

Yes. And, all I’m saying is that I think the report is incorrect. To me the argument is like saying “they wanted to destroy our culture before, but now they really want to destroy our culture!”

 

[rlg94086]

walstan:

This is quite true, in fact it’s the same reason we hate them, because of their, “Existance” and “Culture”. Interesting conundrum isn’t it? They hate us because we hate them!

Interesting. Even Osama bin Laden doesn’t make that argument. Who says we hate muslims or Iraqis? Certainly not our President or your Prime Minister. We “hate” terrorists the same way we “hate” serial killers. I don’t think hate is the right word, but if that’s your preference…

Now everyone can enter into the argument, they started with 9/11,… No…No we started it with Palestine, No…No… they started it with the Ottoman Empire, No… No…they starteds it with the Crusades,…ad infinitum. The whole point of the issue is not who started what, but WHO IS PREPARED TO END WHAT.

We could enter into that argument, but it’s a boring argument. We are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan because of terrorist attacks by Al Quaeda and to take down a dictator who has attacked his neighbors, threatened our countries and supported terrorists.

It is a very simple lesson, treat others with respect and they will (eventually) treat you the same. Treat the Arab nations with respect, and you will win over the vast majority who will see terrorism for what it really is. It’s called HEARTS and MINDS, to defeat terrorism you have to elliminate their support in their own community, you can’t do that by appearing to wage war on them.

We’ve treated Arab nations with respect, which is why we have good relations with many of them. Terrorists could care less about respect. They whip people into a frenzy by telling them Allah wants us all dead. With such people, you can treat them as nice as possible, and they’ll still consider you lower than dogs and want to destroy your culture.

 

[MikeWM]

rlg94086:

Yes. And, all I’m saying is that I think the report is incorrect. To me the argument is like saying “they wanted to destroy our culture before, but now they really want to destroy our culture!”

The difference being before they may well have wanted to but been incapable of so doing. With the Iraq invasion being the biggest recruiting draw Al-Qaeda has possibly ever had, they may well now be in a position to try a lot harder with a lot more foot-soldiers.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

MikeWM:

The difference being before they may well have wanted to but been incapable of so doing. With the Iraq invasion being the biggest recruiting draw Al-Qaeda has possibly ever had, they may well now be in a position to try a lot harder with a lot more foot-soldiers.

Mike

There is truth to that statement, but it has nothing to do with whether the reason they want to attack the UK is because of the UK’s involvement in the War in Iraq.

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

The difference being before they may well have wanted to but been incapable of so doing. With the Iraq invasion being the biggest recruiting draw Al-Qaeda has possibly ever had, they may well now be in a position to try a lot harder with a lot more foot-soldiers.

Awful lot of qualifiers.

Here’s the simple truth: Folks like those who run Al-Q don’t hate the West because the West hates them. They don’t the West because of Palestine, or the Crusades, or anything like that. They hate all who disagree with their ideology because their ideology divides the world into two groups: the servants of God (who Al-Q identifies as themselves) and the servants of Satan (who Al-Q identifies as everyone else).

Note the emphasis: everyone else. You, me, your children, my children, everyone else.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

Awful lot of qualifiers.

Oddly, it is quite difficult to quantify the number of terrorists. Governments aren’t keen to tell you, and I don’t know any personally. I go off gut feeling, and reports from people like MI5 and GCHQ:

*A report by the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre - which includes officials from MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the police - explicitly linked US-led involvement in Iraq with terrorist activity in the UK although it concluded that no group currently had the “intent and the capability” to mount an attack, the New York Times said.

“Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK,” the report - a copy of which was leaked to the paper by a foreign intelligence agency - said.*

guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1531729,00.html

Here’s the simple truth: Folks like those who run Al-Q don’t hate the West because the West hates them. They don’t the West because of Palestine, or the Crusades, or anything like that.

I don’t believe you are right, but if you are right, it seems wise to not do anything that would swell their numbers whatsoever. Things like invading a sovereign country without international backing, for example.

Mike

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

I don’t believe you are right, but if you are right, it seems wise to not do anything that would swell their numbers whatsoever. Things like invading a sovereign country without international backing, for example.

The U.S. had international backing, which you well know since Great Britain and several other countries were involved, which, of course, very nicely fits the definition of “international.”

But that’s not the point. This is the point: Al-Q already views you as the enemy. It already desires your death. This sort of stark worldview (followers of God versus followers of Satan) has long been the hallmark of Wahhabism, the ideological father of Al-Q.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

The U.S. had international backing, which you well know since Great Britain and several other countries were involved, which, of course, very nicely fits the definition of “international.”

Splitting hairs. ‘The backing of the international institutions set up for this purpose’ then, though my fingers don’t thank you for making me labour the point.

But that’s not the point. This is the point: Al-Q already views you as the enemy. It already desires your death.

Which is a very good reason not to do things that will act as recruiting banners for them.

Mike

 

[Maranatha]

If I recall correctly terrorists bombed a French train even though the French government was against the invasion of Iraq.

There was a time when the British people knew that appeasement doesn’t work. They stood up for that was right even if it was the hard path to take.

Cheers