Thursday, August 10, 2006

Secret agent man – From CNN – “Agent infiltrated terror cell”: “An undercover British agent infiltrated the group, giving the authorities intelligence on the alleged plan, several U.S. government officials said.” Also, from WashPost: “British authorities said Thursday they have disrupted a sophisticated and well-advanced terrorist plot to blow up U.S.-bound airliners using liquid explosives, arresting 24 people who police said had planned to commit mass murder over the Atlantic Ocean.” Keep checking Expat Yank for the latest directly from the UK.

12 comments:

Brian said...

I just know that Bush violated the Muslims gentlemen's civil rights by wiretapping them without a warrant.

Oops, more throes said...

Haw, haw! Good one, Jeff Spicoli! The Bill of Rights is for faaags!

Hey, let's ignore the fact that it was quality police work by the UK, combined with effective international diplomacy, that stopped another legitimate threat. Treating terrorism like the deadly serious crime it is, rather than a military showdown on a borderless battlefield... what a concept.

Let's ignore the corollary fact that the "Bush Doctrine" of military bombings and invasions have only increased those same threats.

Let's ignore the fact that the UK apparently had an Muslim agent whom they could plant within the terror cell. While the USA will dismiss a sorely-needed Arab translator for liking other boys.

And let's ignore the fact that this plot was orchestrated by British citizens within their nation of birth. Gee, that's odd. Our leaders have assured us that democratic ideals such as free elections will cripple Islamofascism. And England has had those things for a couple of years now. Oh well.

I'd say "back to the old drawing board," except that would imply the Bush White House had ever been at the drawing board in the first place.

Anonymous said...

"Treating terrorism like the deadly serious crime it is, rather than a military showdown on a borderless battlefield... what a concept."

This is one of those situations where I'm not sure if the Left is being dumb or dishonest. The war against jihadists is both domestic and foreign. It's not an either or situation. The FBI, police, etc... search for terror cells at home and the military and CIA fight them abroad. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. How can anyone argue with a straight face that we should stick with the pre 9/11 reacting to the enemy/hope the feds catch them in time approach. Should we turn back the clock and not kill and capture jihadists by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, including all of the intelligence that has been gathered by sending our military abroad?



"Hey, let's ignore the fact that it was quality police work by the UK, combined with effective international diplomacy, that stopped another legitimate threat."

Oddly enough having their military in both Iraq and Afhanistan did not prevent their domestic security services from stopping the attack. Fancy that. I guess armored divisions aren't necessary to protect airports.

Anonymous said...

VP, you have the most...interesting trolls. Lack of self awareness, ignorance of history, inability to draw Venn diagrams - they have it all.

Anonymous said...

British intelligence cracked this case by doing exactly what Bush tries to do: surveillance, data tracking, interagency cooperation, etc.

When this produces a demonstrable success, the American Left tries to exploit it for political gain, even though they consistently oppose the policies that produced the success.

They are completely unserious when it comes to security issues. Completely unserious.

Anonymous said...

"They are completely unserious when it comes to security issues. Completely unserious."

The word "unserious" is embarassed to be associated with the Left. There is no word in any language to adequately describe how pathetic they are.

We Need a White Flag-Burning Amendment said...

When this produces a demonstrable success, the American Left tries to exploit it for political gain

Oh, those shameless Defeatocrats! How can they be so low?

From "Bush Seeks Political Gains From Foiled Plot":
"[b]Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big[/b]," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060810/pl_afp/britainattacksairline_060810185330

As for that devastating namecalling:

From the Conservative Dictionary, 2006 Ed.
un*ser*i*ous, adj.
1. In disagreement with us.
2. Unwilling to match our hysteria.
3. Valuing Constitutional law.

Anonymous said...

From the Democratic Party Dictionary of Phrases, 2006 Ed.

"Valuing Constitutional law": The act of voting Democrats in power, always.

"Hysteria": When adults place proper emphasis on an issue that Democrats are clearly weak on and unserious about.

"In disagreement with us": A phrase used to downplay the fact that we are shriekingly insane.

Anonymous said...

You'll be delighted to hear that a third of the country agrees with you.

JorgXMcKie said...

Yup, that's why Dems have won so many elections in the past five years.

Oops.

Not that I expect Lefties to understand anytthing as hard as stats. It's feelings that count.

Na na na na, na na na na, hey, hey, goodbye. said...

Stats are hard, aren't they?

The past five years? Since 2000, the Democrats have held between 48.7% and 46.4% of the House, and between 50% and 44% of the Senate. But apparently only ~53% of American elections are real, or something.

Anyway, your idols had a nice little run from 2002-04. And now, that time is over. I hope this doesn't give you... feelings.

Mr. Unserious said...

British intelligence cracked this case by doing exactly what Bush tries to do: surveillance, data tracking, interagency cooperation, etc.
When this produces a demonstrable success, the American Left tries to exploit it for political gain


Yet more on the dastardly American Left exploiting this case for political gain:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/washington/13bush.html?ref=europe

The hidden gem in the article:
Congressional officials said they were acting on their own, not on guidance from the White House. “We really knew instinctively what we wanted to say,” said Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois.