Source: UK Terrorists Did Not Buy Airline Tickets, or Have Passports

Nonphixion · 08-14-2006, 06:13 AM

Politics Of Fear: US, UK At Odds Over Timing Of Arrests

-----
LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

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.

ballz2wallz · 08-14-2006, 07:48 AM

nor did they have their bombs made yet either.

it's a tough call...the US didn't want to risk another 9/11...can't say that i blame them. the UK wanted to wait til the guys had gone a little further. they'll get the hang of this over time though. i don't care either way, as long as they keep them from doing the damage.

Diesel66 · 08-14-2006, 01:05 PM

And ? Bush gets attacked for not going after rumors before 9/11. Here we have a solid report and he gets attacked for arresting them early ?

Donkey® · 08-14-2006, 01:11 PM

If they think they have enough evidence, I guess there's nothing wrong with it. But I mean, it would be more evidence wise if they had passports and plane tickets.

7960 · 08-14-2006, 01:49 PM

Not having tickets or passports doesn't mean shit. Who's to say they weren't going to use someone else's passport? That would mean the other guy could also buy the ticket.

<speculation>
I'm going to use my brother's passport to get on a plane and do something bad. Police know I'm going to do it and want to stop me. They come arrest me. Papers report, "He didn't even have a passport or plane ticket!!!"
</speculation>

I'd rather err on the side of stopping them sooner than later.

motivez · 08-14-2006, 02:10 PM

I'd err on the side of stopping them sooner than later too, but without this type of evidence, what are they basing the arrests on?

Kytro · 08-15-2006, 08:07 PM

The amusing thing about this is the reaction. Banning liquids, etc when the governmetn knew for some time this was possible and ther was never any danger of them actually carrying out this attack.

It's like they achieved thier goal of terrorism without even having to go through with the attack.

Ardentfrost · 08-15-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

The amusing thing about this is the reaction. Banning liquids, etc when the governmetn knew for some time this was possible and ther was never any danger of them actually carrying out this attack.

It's like they achieved thier goal of terrorism without even having to go through with the attack.

That's what I think too... terrorism doesn't require people to die necessarily... people just have to change their way of life

motivez · 08-15-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That's what I think too... terrorism doesn't require people to die necessarily... people just have to change their way of life

Yup

Too many people are willing today to massively change the we exist as a nation because of terrorism, when in fact, that's one of the major goals of the terrorists.

Concept · 08-16-2006, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Too many people are willing today to massively change the we exist as a nation because of terrorism, when in fact, that's one of the major goals of the terrorists.

I'm sure bin Laden is well aware of the partisan separation that is tearing our country apart. He must have chuckled when Ned Lamont was called a 'Taliban Democrat'.