As described in media reports of the day, the alleged "liquid bombing" plot which was allegedly foiled during the second week of August was to have been a synchronized attack
in which terrorists would make bombs out of harmless liquids aboard
moving airplanes and blow those planes out of the sky more or less
simultaneously, causing "mass murder on an unimaginable scale".
As described in a few blog posts and one British report, but not in any major US media, the alleged plot relied on many factors which were seen by some skeptics as considerably unlikely.
A recent article by Jason Bennetto in The Independent claims that because of the clumsy way in which the alleged plot was broken up, beginning with the arrest of Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, many of the alleged plotters disappeared before they could be arrested. Most of the reaction in the left blogosphere has restricted itself to either simply mirroring the article, or else using it to criticize Bush over his foolishness and perhaps pointing to the timing of the arrests in context of political events in the USA at the time.
But if these "terrorists" -- this so-called second wave -- are still at large, then it makes sense both to ask how viable the plan was at the time, and to re-examine its viability now, in light of recent changes to airport security.
I. Echoes From the Past and Future
"When it's a question of money, everybody is of the same religion."Add a comment
â€œPeople do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only donâ€™t forget; they also strike back.â€
Harold Pinter, Nobel Laureate
Women, kids, old, sick most at risk in Iraq, says Reuters. To which we say: Ho-hum. Old news. We've killed hundreds of thousands of these weaklings already, been killing them for years, with sanctions, bombs, snipers, chaos, deprivation, whatever. Who cares? You know what's really important? If Jim Baker can "seal his legacy in the realm of statesmen" by spraying enough perfume on the shitheap that Junior Bush has made of Iraq so that the high and mighty of the American Establishment can slither out of the mire without smelling too bad.
That's what it's all about, baby, that's the kind of thing that counts. How a lifelong, bloodstained bagman can become a "second Disraeli." How Hillary and Obama can nuance their positions to squeeze maximum political mileage out of the American-made mass slaughter in Iraq. How many he-man poses John McCain can strike on his knees as he grovels to the slavering extremists he thinks will make him president.
That's where the focus of our political discourse will be from here on
out. (With frequent side dishes of stern condemnation of the worthless
Iraqis for "failing" us, of course.) This time next year â€“ when U.S.
forces have either high-tailed it "over the horizon" into Kuwait or
else are hunkered down in the (supposedly) permanent bases from which
the Bush-Cheney faction have always intended to plunder the spoils of
the hydra-headed war they've engendered â€“ the chattering classes that
control the public debate will still be chewing the clot-smeared rags
of the Beltway power game.
Add a comment
by Paul William Roberts
"... and therefore the Egyptian law pressed this affair well, 'Let all that break their word and oaths die for it; because they are loaden with a double iniquity,... they destroy piety and reverence towards God, and faith amongst men, which is the greatest ligature of society.' And if princes do falsify their word and lie, their neighbours can have no entercourse with them but by violence and war, and their subjects none but fear and chance. For princes to lie is the greatest undecency in the world: and therefore Diodorus Siculus tells that the Egyptian princes used to wear a golden chain mixed and distinguished with curious stones, and they call it Truth; meaning that nothing was a greater ornament to a prince, nothing ought to be more sacred, or more remembered."
â€” Jeremy Taylor
This week on GR, What on earth are you eating? National Coordinator for the Canadian office of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, Bill Jeffery on food labelling legislation. And; Canadian Action Party leader Connie Fogal and the impending death of Canada. And; Janine Bandcroft bringing us up to speed on some of the good things to get up to in and around Victoria this week.
Gorilla Radio for Monday November 27, 2006
C. L. Cook
November 27, 2006
If we are what we eat, then most Canadians have no idea of just what consistutes their...constitutions. Canada is experiencing a health crisis. Diabetes rates are skyrocketting for both types I and II; heart disease, and the myriad health complications associated with obesity are making ill and killing thousands of citizens every year, and yet the country is getting fatter by the day. And the forecast for future generations doesn't look good if current trends continue.
But how to address the issue?
Bill Jeffery is the National Coordinator for the Canadian office of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit health advocacy organization specializing in nutrition and food safety issues in Canada and the United States. The centre is a supporter of MP Tom Wappel's proposed Bill C-283, an act to amend food labelling laws in this country.
Bill Jeffery in the first half.