Latest Terror Threat: More Government Foreknowledge?

[CVX]

This week's cross-Atlantic terror alert has all the markings of an orchestrated incident to maintain public support for the ongoing US-British war on terror. White House spokesman Tony Snow admitted that President Bush had not been awakened by the dramatic news of Britain's air traffic shutdown because "Bush had been getting regular briefings on the developments for days." If they knew so far in advance, why the dramatic shut-down of trans-Atlantic air traffic inconveniencing thousands, as if they intervened just in time?

[Adam Zapple]

It's called an investigation. You gather info until you connect the dots and have enough evidence to proceed, then you act.

[AussiePam]

Congratulations to all the intelligence forces involved for doing a great job!!!!!

[Uncle Kram]

I hardly think they're trying to garner support by this. The potential damage to the economy by virtually shutting down Heathrow and sending out a message that it's unsafe to fly would be a last resort by any government. It is also more likely to have people asking why we're active in the Middle East at all. The FACT is that there are many disenchanted fanatics within these shores hell-bent on destroying our way of life and it has always just been a question of time before we see the fruit of their hatred Some conspiracy theories appear to have validity, but does everything have to be a conspiracy?

[Rapunzel]

If they'd stopped the terrorists too early, or let them know they were onto them, then they wouldn't have been able to collect enough evidence against them and they would also not have caught the mastermind behind the attacks.

Without enough evidence they could not prosecute and all the terrorists would walk! They think the actual attack was due to take place a day or two after the arrests, so they gained as much knowledge as they possibly could, before closing in.

The reason for the intense security was because there were still thought to be a couple of terrorists on the loose and it was thought they would still try to hijack and blow up at least one plane!

Also, if the terrorists had discovered they were under surveillance, it would have blown the cover of all those helping the police in their capture, including helpful members of the local community where the terrorists live.

Obvious really!

[Uncle Kram]

Originally Posted by Rapunzel

If they'd stopped the terrorists too early, or let them know they were onto them, then they wouldn't have been able to collect enough evidence against them and they would also not have caught the mastermind behind the attacks.

Without enough evidence they could not prosecute and all the terrorists would walk! They think the actual attack was due to take place a day or two after the arrests, so they gained as much knowledge as they possibly could, before closing in.

The reason for the intense security was because there were still thought to be a couple of terrorists on the loose and it was thought they would still try to hijack and blow up at least one plane!

Also, if the terrorists had discovered they were under surveillance, it would have blown the cover of all those helping the police in their capture, including helpful members of the local community where the terrorists live.

Obvious really!

You'd think

If 'they' were trying to promote an attitude of support for the war on terror, it would be done through far more subtle means, such as through the programmes on TV, interviews, etc. This then primes your mind ready for it, so to speak.
I don't think shutting down airports would do the job...can you imagine it?
'Oi! Support this, or you can't go on holiday!' would evoke nothing more than a whole bunch of crabby tourists at best!
Sorry to be flippant, but I can't help it..

I thought Adam explained it quite succinctly and accurately.

It is entirely possible that MI-5 was involved in this investigation but in the UK (I think this is still the case) MI-5 doesn't actually have any powers of arrest. I would think in this case that they (again assuming they were involved) would have been working closely with possibly Special Branch but certainly CT police units which I think would have been from the Met and possibly some other forces.

The police work independently - in operational terms - from the government. The Home Secretary nor the PM himself can order the Commissioner of the Met or even the PC on the beat, to make an arrest. English law is very clear that the individual police officer makes that decision and is legally accountable for that decision. Given all that it stands to reason - of course if evidence is produced on this I will admit my error - that the police acted independently of any political direction to make these arrests. Unless all the suspects are released without charge (wouldn't that be not just embarrassing but damaging to their credibility) one can safely assume that everything was done according to legal and not political imperatives.

That politicians will grandstand and extract the maximum amount of political gain from the arrests shouldn't cause anyone to ascribe dark motivations to the police in CT matters. That's what politicians do.

[CVX]

My laptop turned off on me before I could finish this post.

This was a quote by another source (?) on the Internet that I found last night. It's why I posted here in the Conspiracy Theories area of Forumgarden. (Personally, I think the author was off the rails.)

[charles_r51]

it would seem that the potential for terrorist actions is rathr high. somehow, though, something doesn't quite ring true. every time the republicans feel threatened, they drag out 9/11. everytime they want to mitigate damage to the party, they drag out 9/11. and every time bush opens his mouth, only the republicans in congress can handle the threat. he got us into another quagmire, only the enemy isn't from communists, but shady unknown and unnamed terrorists seeking to destroy america. bush is so afraid the democrats will win in november, what better way to push his war on terror than to have showey arrests, whether in this country or another. but of course, america wqas the target, therefore only the republicans can save us. what hogwash. party affiliation has nothing to do with it. it's all about money. who has it makes the rules. and bush and the republicans are sure to benefit in one way or another.