UK claims to have foiled 'terrorist' plot against airbase

[Andy_Ross]

Apparently there have been numerous instances of USAF staff selling fuel to locals around air bases across the world, in Romania, Afghanistan and Iraq. Could the gang have been gathering to receive fuel from the base?! Another interesting plot twist.

I suggested yesterday that the base Bilko had a fuel scam going and his customers got lost.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because subordinates have been taught to support their supervisors lies. Look at the sycophancy towards your Rapist-in-chief.

What are you talking about? Trump isn't the supervisor of anyone in the UK. And why isn't a supervisor in the UK confirming publicly that this wasn't a terrorist incident? And to be very clear: I'm not saying this because I think it was a terrorist attack. I'm saying this because I think the UK government has a serious problem with being transparent. You can't blame Trump for that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What are you talking about? Trump isn't the supervisor of anyone in the UK. And why isn't a supervisor in the UK confirming publicly that this wasn't a terrorist incident? And to be very clear: I'm not saying this because I think it was a terrorist attack. I'm saying this because I think the UK government has a serious problem with being transparent. You can't blame Trump for that.

Nobody wants to poke Trump with a stick, or in this case say straight out that he was wrong, because he'll just do something vindictive like slap 150% tariffs on whatever product he associates with your country. That's how much the world is walking on eggshells because of this thin-skinned man-baby.

Consider Rubio's statement earlier. He walked the terrorism claim back, but he left open a suspicion of fiendish foreign involvement somehow, just to avoid contradicting the monster.

 

[Andy_Ross]

George Allison
@geoallison
Just in from Counter Terror Cops investigating RAF Fairford incident - no improvised explosive devices found, though petrol was recovered from the vehicles. The scenes around Fairford are being reduced and are expected to be closed completely by tomorrow.

Link

 

[Carrot Flower King]

George Allison
@geoallison
Just in from Counter Terror Cops investigating RAF Fairford incident - no improvised explosive devices found, though petrol was recovered from the vehicles. The scenes around Fairford are being reduced and are expected to be closed completely by tomorrow.

Link

Petrol, eh?

Wonder where that came from? And how?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Nobody wants to poke Trump with a stick, or in this case say straight out that he was wrong, because he'll just do something vindictive like slap 150% tariffs on whatever product he associates with your country. That's how much the world is walking on eggshells because of this thin-skinned man-baby.

Consider Rubio's statement earlier. He walked the terrorism claim back, but he left open a suspicion of fiendish foreign involvement somehow, just to avoid contradicting the monster.

But if they were British citizens that is foreign to them.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

But if they were British citizens that is foreign to them.

Rubio definitely can't find Wiltshire nor Glowsighsesstershooooor on a map, and wouldn't know a bit of oolite if someone hit him in the gob with some.

 

[Pixel42]

And why isn't a supervisor in the UK confirming publicly that this wasn't a terrorist incident?

It's not unusual for UK police to say very little about an ongoing investigation in its early stages.

It may well be that they are not yet prepared to rule the possibility out. There's an interesting comment in their latest statement:

He added: “But be assured, we are considering this from every possible angle, including that this may be actively committed by proxies or individuals either knowingly or unknowingly working on behalf of a foreign state.”

which suggests they think the guys they've bailed might have been used in some way.

No explosives found in three vans searched near RAF Fairford, say police

Head of counter-terrorism policing defends decision to bail five British men arrested in connection with incident

www.theguardian.com

 

[smartcooky]

In other news, the pope is still Catholic and bears still ◊◊◊◊ in the woods.

Actually, "The Pope" is NOT a Catholic, he's Coptic Orthodox
- per Sandi Toksvig on QI

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not unusual for UK police to say very little about an ongoing investigation in its early stages.

Sure. But this isn't a usual case. Most petrol thieves aren't suspected of being terrorists. And because it's an unusual case, doing something unusual like clarifying that they're NOT terrorists seems rather justified, if the authorities know that they aren't. I'm not saying that they need to tell us everything. They don't need to say exactly what they're guilty (or suspected) of, they don't need to reveal their identities, etc. But if the authorities know they aren't terrorists, they should say that.

It may well be that they are not yet prepared to rule the possibility out.

Why not? Is that because it's actually still a possibility? Because that would rather mess up the current narrative that it's definitely not. Everything changes if this is still a possibility. Is it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Nobody wants to poke Trump with a stick

Lots of people want to poke Trump with a stick. Lots of people DO poke Trump with a stick. I don't object to poking Trump with a stick (metaphorically). Poke away.

If UK police are actually avoiding disclosure because of Trump, that's a big ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ problem. I don't find that explanation credible, but it's actually worse than what I suspect is the reason, which is just institutional habits of secrecy. If that's really what you're going with, it's even more damning than my criticism.

 

[Pixel42]

There's no official "current narrative that it's definitely not". There's no official current narrative. Just lots of impatient people speculating, based on what's known and guessed, whilst the police investigate and try to construct one.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

There's no official "current narrative that it's definitely not". There's no official current narrative. Just lots of impatient people speculating, based on what's known and guessed, whilst the police investigate and try to construct one.

That and we have contempt of court laws which cover what is said before, as well as during, any possible trial.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Oh, and mostly this has been exaggerated to buggery by the interventions of Trump and Rubio, let alone our home grown far right loons, all on the basis of next to nothing actually known but a metric ◊◊◊◊ ton assumed.

 

[Ziggurat]

There's no official "current narrative that it's definitely not". There's no official current narrative.

I said nothing about official. But read this thread: there is absolutely a consensus narrative here. And that consensus narrative is that this wasn't a terrorist attack. If I were to bet, I'd say that narrative probably correct. My point is not that this narrative is wrong.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Isabel Oakeshott
@IsabelOakeshott

DID the five terror suspects have diplomatic immunity?? A few months ago the Iranian Embassy in London launched a recruitment programme for martyrs. The government was sufficiently alarmed to call in the Ambassador. Might our five antiheroes have signed up? And might the Embassy have given them a get-out-of-jail card?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I said nothing about official. But read this thread: there is absolutely a consensus narrative here. And that consensus narrative is that this wasn't a terrorist attack. If I were to bet, I'd say that narrative probably correct. My point is not that this narrative is wrong.

Your point seems to be why don't the police tell us what they've got, even though they usually don't, because this case is special, because we all jumped to the conclusion it was about terrorism, even though it almost certainly isn't, since there's no chance at all the police would have bailed the suspects because they can keep terrorism suspects for two weeks without charge.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your point seems to be why don't the police tell us what they've got,

No. I'm saying that in this case, they tell us what they DON'T have. They DON'T have a terrorism case (allegedly). Saying what you don't have isn't the same as saying what you do have.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No. I'm saying that in this case, they tell us what they DON'T have. They DON'T have a terrorism case (allegedly). Saying what you don't have isn't the same as saying what you do have.

If they're telling us this isn't a terrorism case, what's all the fuss about?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I suppose the thing is that "There was suspicious activity near a US airbase that had been threatened by a foreign power so we treated it as a potential terrorist threat, after they were arrested it seemed not to be terrorism but we investigated further before prosecuting them for non terror offenses" seems pretty reasonable to people who aren't looking to score political points. "There was suspicious activity near a US airbase that had been threatened by a foreign power so we treated it as a potential terrorist threat, after they were arrested it seemed not to be terrorism so we announced that and then found that actually it was terrorism... Whoops!" would be pretty embarrassing.