Blogroll Me!
Imminent Threat Of Passenger Plane Bombings' Lies ...
Once again, further emerging evidence appears to support the long standing claims by the 'unconditioned' among us that the 43rd US president's pants instinctively insist on serially self combusting.
Seen anything of this story from NBC yet?
Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says
Disagreement over terror arrests - Aug. 12:
U.S. and British authorities disagreed on when to break up an alleged plot to blow up airliners bound for the United States, officials say.
NBC's Lisa Myers reports.
And quite apart from what the above headline says, how do you feel about the following revelations? Which, incidentally, we've so far failed to find anywhere in the UK media.
In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.What?
No imminent threat of any attacks?
Not a single plane ticket purchased?
Nor even passports possessed?
The 'imminent threat' they made so much about must have been the same sort of 'imminent threat' from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that Jack Straw said were a mere 45 minutes away, before we illegally invaded and occupied that country.
Here's another little eye opener from the same revealing NBC report referenced above.
The source said the suspects in Britain had obtained at least some of the materials for the explosive but had not yet actually prepared or mixed it.Imminent threat'?
Imminent ?
Imminent as in immediate?
Purleeez, Mr President, as the people populating our part of the planet are prone to intone -- pull the other one, pal -- it's got bells on.
Well we don't know about you, but whenever we discover such whopping discrepancies in any story sold to us as the gospel truth, we can't help but wonder what other Alice In Wonderland sort of stuff's been simultaneously slipped into in the same script.
Find the full NBC 'fib' report right here.
*
posted by Richard at Sunday, August 13, 2006
13 Comments:
Hi Richard,
There are more contradictory revelations to come I guess but in the age of the visual media, people don't keep track of lies, they go from one to another.
I want to tell you that I completed my second post on security which is a personal account. You can read it in a august 11th post:
http://lespolitiques.blogspot.com/2006/08/security-in-age-of-terror-part-2.html#links
Ruchard,
This is a great post. I can see your recovery was quick !
Superb find Richard.
The ultimate oxymoron?
Truthfull politicians.
Richard from a purely technical perspective:
The Americans keep this up and they'll find that other services flat out stop cooperating with them. This isn't the first time they've leaked stuff. And it won't be the first time they've been embargoed for information sharing either.
I've just posted this picture up on my blog. Orwellian or what?
Isn't this down to (a)Blair not being able to hold his own water, and (b)always wanting to ingratiate himself with Gerorge?
It was a great find Brit. As usual though it wasn't picked up properly by hardly anyone else, and so will soon slip down the memory hole. I wonder when that hole's going to be full? More like a bottomless pit than a hole I think.
What, are you the same people that purchase the National Enquirer? You seem to love dirty laundry and conspiracy theories.
I've seen these ridiculous questions before about the time of the arrests. Please tell me, exactly when would've been a good time to arrest these people? Today? Yesterday? December?
Someone commented, "Great find" kiss kiss kiss. Great find? Do you honestly think that this was some kind of international debacle between our authorities and Britain, and you've actually sleuthed this hidden story? Give me a break. I'm sure the dialogue wasn't argumentative at all between the two professional organizations. Use your heads. If it was a bigger deal, the rest of the news would’ve published it.
The dialogue probably went something like:
U.S: “Their attack date is nearing; we would like to arrest these people. They might have evidence that would lead to other arrests but if we wait, it might be too late.”
Britain: We would prefer to wait a little longer. Let them do a dry run.
U.S.: We really need to keep our country safe and that's cutting it too close.
Britain: O.k.
I'm sure that dialogue is too simple for you to swallow. Go ahead and keep hyping it some more.
I bet you're also one of those who are "sure" that Bush was elected - not selected. And that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And that there was nothing worth investigating about building #7 going down on 9/11. And that the US won the war against Viet Nam. And that there really is a tooth fairy and a Santa.
anon #1,
You talk about "too simple" but you're reading things into things that weren't written, so here it is put simply for you.
No one said terrorist suspects shouldn't be taken in for questioning.
The claims of 'imminent' attacks were lies -- which caused untold chaos and misery for all kinds of people.
The more lies our politicians tell us, obviously the less they will be [and rightly] should be trusted.
1st Anonymous, 3rd anonymous seems to have saved me the trouble.
3rd anonymous, and everyone else - thanks for the continued support.
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Jw83Rh The best blog you have!
Post a Comment
<< Home