(ED) Breaking: UK thwarts 9-11 style airplane plot [Archive]

Cylinder

9th August 2006, 11:09 PM

Plane Terror Plot Thwarted (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230417,00.html)

Police say they have disrupted a major plot to blow up planes in mid-flight with explosive devices smuggled aboard as hand luggage.

Sky News has been told the plan was to hit around a dozen planes over UK and US cities.

Police are said to have arrested 20 people in London - the culmination of a major covert counter-terrorist operation lasting several months.

Passengers trying to board international flights from the UK are not being allowed to carry on hand luggage.

The Home Office's level of security - indicating public risk - has been raised from 'severe' to 'critical'.

Sky News' Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said he understood the threat was imminent and those arrested were mainly young, British-born Asian men.

He said the alleged plan involved people boarding flights and detonating explosives on planes over UK and US cities.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the United States has no greater freind than the United Kingdom.

Rule Brittania and all that stuff!

Cylinder

9th August 2006, 11:17 PM

Maybe someone would be kind enough to delete the "up" in my title. My editing skills leave something to be desired.

fishbob

9th August 2006, 11:29 PM

I think that is when your boat is upside down - so 'thwarts up' does convey the idea that something not right is going on.

Kopji

9th August 2006, 11:49 PM

Humm, a flight was turned around a couple days ago, wonder if the incidents are related.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5253930.stm

gumboot

10th August 2006, 12:03 AM

Nice work by the Brits... :D

Looks like terrorists like to stick to the old trusted format - this is Operation Bojinka all over again...

-Andrew

Cylinder

10th August 2006, 12:05 AM

US flights are coming under heightened restrictions for carry-on luggage as well. Hope no JREFers are flying the friendly skies today.

Cylinder

10th August 2006, 12:09 AM

...this is Operation Bojinka all over again...

For those not familiar, this was the original 9-11 plot. It was an intricate plan to attack US cities on both coasts and explode aircraft over the Pacific. Two dozen aircraft was originally envisioned with Khalid Sheik Mohammed taking an intact hostage flight to some unknown destination to get his 15 minutes of fame.

Cylinder

10th August 2006, 12:11 AM

Thanks for the edit, BTW. :)

Cylinder

10th August 2006, 12:24 AM

Apparently under the UK flight restrictions, if you are carrying baby formula, you have to drink some in front of the security agent before boarding.

Apparently the threat was some form of explosive liquid or their components being smuggled aboard.

Yikes!

gtc

10th August 2006, 12:31 AM

For that to work, you would have to see an immediate reaction from drinking small quantities of the explosive liquid. Furthermore, security will have to be able to tell that you have actually drunk it and not just put it to your lips.

Why would you care about drinnking some of the explosive liquid, that wasn't going to kill you straight away, if you were about to get your proverbial virgins?

Dr Adequate

10th August 2006, 12:44 AM

gtc

10th August 2006, 12:48 AM

The story I'm hearing on the radio is that security people are tasting the milk themselves.

By drinking it? That is faintly off putting and potentially dangerous (risk of poisons or disease).

Cylinder

10th August 2006, 12:56 AM

Sky is reporting that the plot involved consecutive flights for US carriers from London, Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester. The UK is suspending all inbound international flights that have yet to depart.

UK officials are asking all passengers to avoid traveling to Heathrow. No information if the airport will be closed.

webfusion

10th August 2006, 12:57 AM

Photographic evidence of the baby-milk story HERE (http://www.voteben.ca/2006/files/Toxic%20Breasts2.jpg)

Dr Adequate

10th August 2006, 01:02 AM

By drinking it? That is faintly off putting and potentially dangerous (risk of poisons or disease). "Potentially dangerous"? Their job is to protect aeroplanes from terrorists.

"I only signed up to deal with people with guns and bombs ... but now you want me to drink milk? I find that faintly off-putting. My resignation will be on your desk in the morning."

Darat

10th August 2006, 01:11 AM

Perhaps the idea of getting them to sip the milk is more along the old idea of getting you to switch on a piece of electrical equipment etc. i.e. to try and uncover anything untoward disguised as an everyday object?

Darat

10th August 2006, 01:24 AM

I was thinking yesterday when this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4775533.stm?ls) terrorist attack happened and some newspapers reported the finding of "20lbs of high explosive in a search of a loyalist estate in north Belfast" what the cost to the UK has been because of the continuous terrorist threat since well pretty much the end of the second world war.

Financially it must have cost us tremendously but has it had an impact on our society? In my view our press and media seem to to portray us as a much more fearful society today then we were 10 years ago yet my personal experience is quite different, all my family, friends and colleagues seem to just be the same as always - a shrug of the shoulders and carrying on as normal.

gumboot

10th August 2006, 01:36 AM

all my family, friends and colleagues seem to just be the same as always - a shrug of the shoulders and carrying on as normal.

:D

Classic British attitude. You guys are legends.

:D

-Andrew

:UK:

richardm

10th August 2006, 02:58 AM

The UK is suspending all inbound international flights that have yet to depart.

I think that it's only flights inbound to Heathrow that are suspended at the moment. I say "only" - given the amount of traffic into Heathrow that's a major thing. The "main" bomb plot doesn't seem to have been ready to go, and they are (or so I read) worried that there may be a backup plot that would come into action in the event that the main plot was foiled.

Current official advice on what you can carry into the cabin is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778615.stm). I'm flying next week - I wonder if they will have relaxed by then, the queues must be horrendous.

- even if they are, we shouldn't moan about it, it's for our own safety.

I remember at Rome's Fiumicino airport there was a loud American (sorry, but he was) who bitched loudly about the amount of time it was taking to go through security. And it was a long wait, so he got a lot of moaning in. He eventually clomped his carry on bag onto the X-ray machine and stamped through the metal detector directing meaningful looks at the security staff.
Needless to say -
"Scusi - your shoes".
(glares then takes off shoes and puts them on the machine and stamps through the metal detector again)
"Prego - your belt".
(repeat)
"Would you step over here please while we search your bag"
(fume)
Quite funny - we skipped through with our shoes on our feet. A handy tip for any terrorists out there - have someone obnoxious in front of you at security screening ;)

Tanja

10th August 2006, 03:01 AM

My sister is due to fly into Luton from Croatia today, and her flight is at the moment anounced as 3 hours delayed. I have a feeling it will be cancelled alltogether :(

gumboot

10th August 2006, 03:08 AM

I think that it's only flights inbound to Heathrow that are suspended at the moment. I say "only" - given the amount of traffic into Heathrow that's a major thing.

It appears to be an "excess traffic" problem due to longer cues, rather than a security measure.

With flow of flights out of Heathrow grinding to a slow crawl, there simply isn't room for arriving aircraft.

Having said that, I believe Brussels Airport, Olympic and Lufthansa have suspended all flights to the UK. (They are talking about a suspension of a few hours...)

-Andrew

Darat

10th August 2006, 03:10 AM

If flights do continue out the duty free shops are going to benefit - apparently you can still take on items you've bought after you've gone through security...

richardm

10th August 2006, 03:13 AM

If flights do continue out the duty free shops are going to benefit - apparently you can still take on items you've bought after you've gone through security...

It's a Tax-Free Conspiracy!

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 03:20 AM

Meanwhile... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901194.html)
Three Egyptian college students were arrested in Minnesota and New Jersey yesterday after a nationwide alert by the FBI, which said the men were among a group of 11 students who had disappeared after failing to show up for an exchange program at Montana State University.

Authorities said yesterday that preliminary questioning of the three men, along with interviews with friends and relatives overseas, had revealed no apparent ties to terrorist or criminal groups.I hope the FBI won't mind if I want them to do more than "preliminary" investigations and see if there are any terrorist ties that aren't "apparent."

Cheesejoff

10th August 2006, 03:28 AM

By drinking it? That is faintly off putting and potentially dangerous (risk of poisons or disease).

They could pour some into a seperate container...

Anyway, well done to MI5 and the police for foiling this attempt. I think public opinion of security services will be greatly improved after this, and most people will forget about their earlier blunders.

richardm

10th August 2006, 03:33 AM

Anyway, well done to MI5 and the police for foiling this attempt. I think public opinion of security services will be greatly improved after this, and most people will forget about their earlier blunders.
You would like to think so, wouldn't you, but I'm sure there are some sectors of the media who are already working out the best way to criticise them. It will be quite easy to find some passengers ready to complain vociferously about the delays. Also "MI5 action threat to house prices" ;)

Just look at the reaction in the press to the recent terror raids in Forest Gate - "They didn't need that many police there were no bombs in the house. It was just disruptive and wasteful" :rolleyes:

The Fool

10th August 2006, 03:37 AM

Photographic evidence of the baby-milk story HERE (http://www.voteben.ca/2006/files/Toxic%20Breasts2.jpg)
web...Has anyone ever told you that you have really nice breasts?

Darat

10th August 2006, 03:49 AM

You would like to think so, wouldn't you, but I'm sure there are some sectors of the media who are already working out the best way to criticise them. It will be quite easy to find some passengers ready to complain vociferously about the delays. Also "MI5 action threat to house prices" ;)

Just look at the reaction in the press to the recent terror raids in Forest Gate - "They didn't need that many police there were no bombs in the house. It was just disruptive and wasteful" :rolleyes:

Well I live near High Wycombe which is being featured on many of the news reports so I'm waiting for the Daily Mail reporter to be knocking on my door any minute now to ask me if I think having terrorists in the vicinity will effect house prices...

brodski

10th August 2006, 03:56 AM

Well I live near High Wycombe which is being featured on many of the news reports so I'm waiting for the Daily Mail reporter to be knocking on my door any minute now to ask me if I think having terrorists in the vicinity will effect house prices...
To which the only reasonable answer is "not as much as having Daily Mail journalists around here does"

Dr Adequate

10th August 2006, 03:57 AM

Meanwhile... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901194.html)
I hope the FBI won't mind if I want them to do more than "preliminary" investigations and see if there are any terrorist ties that aren't "apparent." That is exactly what the word "preliminary" implies.

I think the FBI are probably quite keen on catching terrorists. Maybe as keen as you are, who knows?

richardm

10th August 2006, 04:20 AM

The story I'm hearing on the radio is that security people are tasting the milk themselves.

I've never heard of a liquid explosive apart from TNT, which is too unstable to use. Does anyone know what they could be looking for?

Don't know whether it's absolutely essential to dry the crystals before using, but (http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/ka_***********_boom/162660.html)

After about 12-24 hours, you should start to see the mixture turn a kind of milky white, and there should be some shiny crystals on top. There might also be some precipitate on the bottom.
...
Acetone peroxide is a very dangerous explosive

The explosive used in the tube bombings was reportedly based on Hydrogen Peroxide, one of the ingredients listed.

Err, hope I'm not breaking any rules posting that link; a Google for "Hydrogen Peroxide Explosive" gives it as the first result, so it wasn't exactly difficult to find.

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 04:43 AM

That is exactly what the word "preliminary" implies.I understand that, hence my including it and highlighting it.

24-hour news station today reported briefly on it (the Egyptian "students"), and anyone listening to it would get the impression that their deportation was practically a done deal. I don't know what the hurry is.

mrfreeze

10th August 2006, 04:45 AM

So wait, what about the other 8? Did we find them or what?

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 04:46 AM

So wait, what about the other 8? Did we find them or what?Not yet.

mrfreeze

10th August 2006, 04:48 AM

Well *rule 8*. I guess I am somewhat thankful I live in michigan, where there's nothing really of value to attack.

Dr Adequate

10th August 2006, 04:56 AM

Err, hope I'm not breaking any rules posting that link ... No, but you raised my blood pressure dangerously.

"I, the author, take no responsibility for how this information is used."

No, you don't, do you, Mr Accessory Before The Fact?

Someone ought to slap him silly while saying "I, the person beating the living **** out of you, take no responsibility for any injuries you may incur --- DO YOU HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING? HUH?"

He probably has a day job working in a gun store. "I, the person selling the gun to the kook for my personal financial gain, take no responsibility..."

Darat

10th August 2006, 05:01 AM

The media are now reporting that 9 planes flying to the USA were the targets (but not today).

mummymonkey

10th August 2006, 05:01 AM

Darat

10th August 2006, 05:03 AM

Latest news/speculation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 05:10 AM

Latest news/speculation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm
Hey, Darat, just looking at your sig line. How do you feel right now about Solzhenitsyn's suggestion that there are really no "evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds..."?

JamesM

10th August 2006, 05:13 AM

I'm flying to San Francisco from Heathrow in a month's time - not looking forward to ten hours without even a book to read.

Darat

10th August 2006, 05:14 AM

Darat

10th August 2006, 05:16 AM

I'm flying to San Francisco from Heathrow in a month's time - not looking forward to ten hours without even a book to read.

Security measures will probably have been reduced by then - plus you can always buy one at the shops once you've passed through security.

Doubt

10th August 2006, 05:16 AM

Dr Adequate

10th August 2006, 05:25 AM

That's the fella. Thanks.

Mephisto

10th August 2006, 05:46 AM

The story I'm hearing on the radio is that security people are tasting the milk themselves.

That should really be interesting when they run into a representative from an international sperm bank. ;) Maybe they'd prefer to drink from the bottle.

richardm

10th August 2006, 05:46 AM

No, but you raised my blood pressure dangerously.
Sorry about that!

At all times, don’t push too hard on the nickels, unless you’re into missing fingers. But they can be pressed together kind of softly, without going off.

Ye-e-es. "Kind of softly", right.

Apparently the police are now evacuating homes in High Wycombe. I assume that means they've found something suspicious in the house.

Mephisto

10th August 2006, 05:48 AM

um.......TNT is solid. Nitroglycerin is liquid.

Isn't Nitroglycerin even more unstable than TNT? Maybe they'll just have everyone shake their bottles of liquid rather vigorously. ;)

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 05:56 AM

Isn't Nitroglycerin even more unstable than TNT? Maybe they'll just have everyone shake their bottles of liquid rather vigorously. ;)TNT is very stable. It's hard to detonate, which is why the Germans used it during WW II in their antitank shells; the shells wouldn't explode on impact and dissipate the explosion of TNT outside the tank.

Dynamite, which is derived from nitroglycerine, is also much more stable than nitroglycerine.

Even you are more stable than nitroglycerine. :p

Mercutio

10th August 2006, 06:02 AM

Don't know whether it's absolutely essential to dry the crystals before using, but (http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/ka_***********_boom/162660.html)

The explosive used in the tube bombings was reportedly based on Hydrogen Peroxide, one of the ingredients listed.

Err, hope I'm not breaking any rules posting that link; a Google for "Hydrogen Peroxide Explosive" gives it as the first result, so it wasn't exactly difficult to find.
Dunno if it is just me, but the link doesn't work now.

gumboot

10th August 2006, 06:03 AM

Dynamite, which is derived from nitroglycerine, is also much more stable than nitroglycerine.

As I recall it only becomes unstabled in hot conditions as the nitroglycerine "sweats" out...

-Andrew

richardm

10th August 2006, 06:04 AM

Dunno if it is just me, but the link doesn't work now.
Ah, ahahaha! The link contains a forbidden word and has been parsed to replace it with asterisks. Replace them with the banned word beginning with f to get to the article (all lower case)

or even click here (http://tinyurl.com/qqhl3).

Mephisto

10th August 2006, 06:13 AM

Even you are more stable than nitroglycerine. :p

Don't be too sure about that - a VA therapist once said I was like a Nitro-Cocktail, shaken not stirred. ;)

What exactly are they looking for as a weapon in liquid form? The chances of nitroglycerin detonating enroute to the airport is much greater than detonating it on demand while in flight. Are they considering perhaps a viral weapon or a mixture that might create a noxious gas?

I'd heard once (I can't provide the source though) that a woman was forced to drink the breast milk she had bottled for a long flight. Airport security forced her to drink out of each separate bottle, thus contaminating the milk and rendering it useless for her infant.

What liquid explosive looks like breast milk?

TobiasTheViking

10th August 2006, 06:17 AM

Don't be too sure about that - a VA therapist once said I was like a Nitro-Cocktail, shaken not stirred. ;)

What exactly are they looking for as a weapon in liquid form? The chances of nitroglycerin detonating enroute to the airport is much greater than detonating it on demand while in flight. Are they considering perhaps a viral weapon or a mixture that might create a noxious gas?

I'd heard once (I can't provide the source though) that a woman was forced to drink the breast milk she had bottled for a long flight. Airport security forced her to drink out of each separate bottle, thus contaminating the milk and rendering it useless for her infant.

What liquid explosive looks like breast milk?
Fahrenheit 9/11(though that was just one bottle i believe, so there may be another case)

Luke T.

10th August 2006, 06:34 AM

Isn't Nitroglycerin even more unstable than TNT? Maybe they'll just have everyone shake their bottles of liquid rather vigorously. ;)

My guess is that these guys were using some kind of binary explosive. Two components that would be mixed together during the flight. Thus, the ban on carry-on liquids.

If these were anything different, then banning them just from carry-ons would be pointless.

Mephisto

10th August 2006, 06:43 AM

Thanks Luke & Tobias,

I'm not at all an explosives expert, but I would like to believe that airport security personnel are kept up to date on what mixtures could make a potential weapon. Rightfully, all liquids should be suspect, but it shouldn't discount the fact that powders (concealed in a Talcum powder bottle, etc.) might also be used. Hell, even something as innocuous as a glass bottle, baking soda and vinegar could make an effective explosive in the confined quarters of an airline cabin.

How much training does British airport security receive? If it's anything like American airport security it's pretty dismal. They X-ray luggage looking for anything that "looks like a bomb," which they likely expect to look like something out of a movie (a mechanical clock, wires, and a bunch of red sticks taped together). Then they'll have you remove your shoes.

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 06:51 AM

What exactly are they looking for as a weapon in liquid form? Not explosive, but how about one guy with an apparently harmless Evian bottle that's actually full of clear chlorine bleach, another with an apparently harmless Evian bottle that's actually full of ammonia, and a third finishing off his refreshing bottle of actual Evian water? Pour the two ingredients into the empty bottle, shake, and walk down the aisle emptying the bottle behind you. Voila - a plane full of poison gas.

brodski

10th August 2006, 06:51 AM

How much training does British airport security receive? If it's anything like American airport security it's pretty dismal. They X-ray luggage looking for anything that "looks like a bomb," which they likely expect to look like something out of a movie (a mechanical clock, wires, and a bunch of red sticks taped together). Then they'll have you remove your shoes.
UK airport security is pretty robust, aside from coping with decades of Christian terrorism (sorry), we also had Lockerbie to shock us into action, UK airport security ash traditionally been much, much tighter than US security, mainly because prior to 9/11 few people in the US airline industry or even the government seemed to think that the US faced any credible threat. For at least 7 years the UK has used devices such as "electronic noses" to sniff out bombs, and the there are the famous Semtex detectors which unfortunately also registered Christmas Puddings as a type of plastic explosive- but better safe than sorry.

Mephisto

10th August 2006, 06:57 AM

UK airport security is pretty robust, aside from coping with decades of Christian terrorism (sorry), we also had Lockerbie to shock us into action, UK airport security ash traditionally been much, much tighter than US security, mainly because prior to 9/11 few people in the US airline industry or even the government seemed to think that the US faced any credible threat. For at least 7 years the UK has used devices such as "electronic noses" to sniff out bombs, and the there are the famous Semtex detectors which unfortunately also registered Christmas Puddings as a type of plastic explosive- but better safe than sorry.

Kudos to UK airport security then. I know that their terrorist threat was far more viable for a longer time than the U.S. and it appears that they've got it down pat. Too bad their U.S. counterparts here haven't picked up their expertise - they seem to be content with going through the motions.

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 07:02 AM

Too bad their U.S. counterparts here haven't picked up their expertise - they seem to be content with going through the motions.Evidence?

Mephisto

10th August 2006, 07:03 AM

Not explosive, but how about one guy with an apparently harmless Evian bottle that's actually full of clear chlorine bleach, another with an apparently harmless Evian bottle that's actually full of ammonia, and a third finishing off his refreshing bottle of actual Evian water? Pour the two ingredients into the empty bottle, shake, and walk down the aisle emptying the bottle behind you. Voila - a plane full of poison gas.

Straight out of BPSCG's Militant's Formulary. :)

You're absolutely right, even a caustic liquid could be used as a weapon. I'm hoping that a poison gas might be stymied by dropping the emergency masks used during a sudden decompression, but I'm not sure. Still, the dispersion of any type of liquid weapons will likely occur as a distraction while cohorts engage the crew (and passengers) in a more conventional manner.

A scary prospect indeed.

Mephisto

10th August 2006, 07:08 AM

Evidence?

Personal experience and a confession. I carried a Gerber Guardian through airport security once without knowing it. I didn't even remember that it was in my carry-on until after I had reached my destination. It has a pretty distinctive outline and SHOULD have been recognized as a weapon (although I'm glad it wasn't - I would have been in big trouble).

I normally place it in the luggage I check in, but I remember being late for my flight and forgot. Had in intentionally hid the knife my "visual cues" might have been different, but the fact remains I'm probably NOT the only person who has accidently (or on purpose even) done this.

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 07:09 AM

Straight out of BPSCG's Militant's Formulary. :)Actually, straight out of working at Hardee's Hamburgers one summer when I was in college.

I wasn't there, but heard it from a manager the next day. Seems they were cleaning up the store after the last customer had left. Some spaces routinely were required to be cleaned with ammonia, some others, with bleach. One guy got the bright idea of mixing the two in a mop bucket.

They had to evacuate the store. The kid wasn't fired - he honestly hadn't known - but he never lived it down.

brodski

10th August 2006, 07:12 AM

Kudos to UK airport security then. I know that their terrorist threat was far more viable for a longer time than the U.S. and it appears that they've got it down pat. Too bad their U.S. counterparts here haven't picked up their expertise - they seem to be content with going through the motions.
I have no idea what US airport security is like post 9/11 (it's almost 7 years since I ventured to your shores), but I do know that a number of UK transport security experts have been sharing their experience with US airport security. Of course there are a number of differences, principally that flying is seen as much more of a routine necessity in the US as compared to the UK, and also, the British actually enjoy queuing. ;)

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 07:14 AM

Personal experience and a confession. I carried a Gerber Guardian through airport security once without knowing it. I didn't even remember that it was in my carry-on until after I had reached my destination. It has a pretty distinctive outline and SHOULD have been recognized as a weapon (although I'm glad it wasn't - I would have been in big trouble).

I normally place it in the luggage I check in, but I remember being late for my flight and forgot. Had in intentionally hid the knife my "visual cues" might have been different, but the fact remains I'm probably NOT the only person who has accidently (or on purpose even) done this.All that this anecdote demonstrates is that U.S. security is not 100%. Do you know what the "failure rate" is? Do you know what the British "failure rate" is? Unless you know both, you really don't know that the British security is better, worse, or the same as U.S. Understand I'm not saying it isn't better - I'm saying you don't know (and neither do I).

Mephisto

10th August 2006, 07:23 AM

Jocko

10th August 2006, 07:44 AM

Darth Rotor

10th August 2006, 07:46 AM

Photographic evidence of the baby-milk story HERE (http://www.voteben.ca/2006/files/Toxic%20Breasts2.jpg)
Please consider a NSFW tag next time a fleshy pic is linked to. I realize the hands were on the hooters, but some work places are just anal.

Thanks in advance.

DR

kittynh

10th August 2006, 07:49 AM

pool boy says this will just make flying more fun. For me, it means hoping my French is good enough that I buy hair shampoo and conditioner when I land. We always do carry on...who wants to wait for bags? Well for some decent shampoo and conditioner I will!

It took me 3 trips to the food store to get milk when we lived in Brussels. I finally found the milk in the nonrefridgerated section! the cold stuff I was bringing home were cream and other products with the work Lait in it. My hair is going to look like crap.

It's so weird. Because if you think about it, it's so easy to do this mickey mouse half a$$ed stuff.

As for baby formula, in the OLD DAYS, you handed the bottles to the steward and he would happily warm up the bottle of milk for you and bring it to you when you pushed the call button. The staff would store the bottles for you in the frige on board. Maybe now the old farts won't complain when a woman breast feed on a plane.

brodski

10th August 2006, 07:55 AM

Maybe now the old farts won't complain when a woman breast feed on a plane.

Unless she was a genetically modified woman, who could shoot laser beams out of her nipples. Mind you, given the fear of female nipples (especially in public) which seems to permeate certain sections of society, you would think that these mammary glands of mass distraction are already standard issue.

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 07:56 AM

I'll concede that assertion to you if you'll agree that everyone on my airplace was lucky I didn't have violent intentions. Sure. Well, not everybody. After you'd knifed one or two people, the rest would probably have taken steps to permanently assure your inability to respond to painful external stimuli...
Certainly no security is 100%, but you'd think our "elevated security" would at least catch a noticable weapon in a carry-on luggage. I wonder how many other instances there are out there when a weapon was inadvertantly brought onto an airliner?I wouldn't be surprised if it happens every day. Even today.

chillzero

10th August 2006, 08:09 AM

fsol

10th August 2006, 08:10 AM

All that this anecdote demonstrates is that U.S. security is not 100%. Do you know what the "failure rate" is? Do you know what the British "failure rate" is? Unless you know both, you really don't know that the British security is better, worse, or the same as U.S. Understand I'm not saying it isn't better - I'm saying you don't know (and neither do I).
Ooh, I've got an anecdote too. Last time I flew to LAX, post 9/11, the American Airlines security guy, found my stash of stanley knife (box cutter) blades, and after I told him I was using them as pencil sharpeners and that I had remembered to take the actual knife handle out of my luggage and had just forgotten about the blades, put them back in my hand luggage and let me take them on to the plane with me.

But at least he found them I suppose, my hand luggage went straight through the "proper" Heathrow customs just before that without a second glance.

It proves nothing of course, it just still amazes me that he actually packed them back into my hand luggage for me and let me get on the plane with them.

Q-Source

10th August 2006, 08:21 AM

From the OP

Sky News' Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt said he understood the threat was imminent and those arrested were mainly young, British-born Asian men.

Again British born Asians... I will never understand why these people who were born, raised and educated in the UK develop this level of hatred and treason. This is a symptom of the deep alienation in which these minorities live.

Does anybody know about the security checks from the US to London?. Are they as strict as they are in England´s airports?. I am flying this Saturday and don´t know if it is a good idea to bring my laptop.

Jocko

10th August 2006, 08:33 AM

OK, a few things according to the BBC.

Darat - they say the duty free shops were closed early on in the alert.

The problem is that although they believe they ahve thwarted the main attack they are taking precautions in case they missed any of the group, or the group had a backup plan.

The plan of attack seems to have been for separate people to carry on several liquids, and electronic triggers in the form of cd players, gameboys, etc. That's why they are being so restrictive in what can be brought on board. Even the flight crews are apparently forbidden to bring anything on board. Exceptions are medicines, baby foods (checked), and that sort of thing.

Boy, that's a lot of detail on the plot. I do sincerely hope that none of the arrested were in any way inconvenienced or made uncomfortable in order to obtain that information. You know, because terrorist peace of mind regarding civil rights is tantamount under all circumstances.

But seriously, I would love to know what steps were taken to extract this level of detail, and who will stand up beside these bastards to defend their comfort levels.

Jaggy Bunnet

10th August 2006, 08:53 AM

Boy, that's a lot of detail on the plot. I do sincerely hope that none of the arrested were in any way inconvenienced or made uncomfortable in order to obtain that information. You know, because terrorist peace of mind regarding civil rights is tantamount under all circumstances.

But seriously, I would love to know what steps were taken to extract this level of detail, and who will stand up beside these bastards to defend their comfort levels.

You are of course assuming this information is correct and not just idle gossip putting together a list of things that have been banned and saying "this is how it was going to be done"?

After the media's performance at the time of the Stockwell shooting, you might want to be a bit more skeptical about their reporting.

RyanRoberts

10th August 2006, 08:58 AM

Again British born Asians

British born Muslims, don't drag the Sikhs and Hindus into this crap. The alienation BTW, is their own damn fault.

I'll give it 5 minutes before the MCB starts bleating about a potential 'backlash' that wont happen before trying to stick the blame on the Jews.

Screw being 'British' about it. I am f**king furious.

Jocko

10th August 2006, 09:00 AM

You are of course assuming this information is correct and not just idle gossip putting together a list of things that have been banned and saying "this is how it was going to be done"?

After the media's performance at the time of the Stockwell shooting, you might want to be a bit more skeptical about their reporting.

I'll take that bet. Anyone else?

Dr Adequate

10th August 2006, 09:03 AM

Boy, that's a lot of detail on the plot. I do sincerely hope that none of the arrested were in any way inconvenienced or made uncomfortable in order to obtain that information. You know, because terrorist peace of mind regarding civil rights is tantamount under all circumstances.

But seriously, I would love to know what steps were taken to extract this level of detail, and who will stand up beside these bastards to defend their comfort levels. You seem to be assuming that this information has been beaten out of the people arrested. You are wrong. In the first place, the UK is a civilized country, and in the second place, clearly the police knew all about the plan in advance. Hence the arrests.

Jaggy Bunnet

10th August 2006, 09:05 AM

I'll take that bet. Anyone else?

The liquids part looks a pretty reasonable assumption based on the measures enacted. So are we betting on the specifics of "cd players" and "gameboys" to be used as electronic triggers? What will constitute acceptable evidence?

And of course there is no indication that any of this has been obtained by torturing the suspects, which appeared to be what you were alluding to.

Dr Adequate

10th August 2006, 09:08 AM

You are of course assuming this information is correct and not just idle gossip putting together a list of things that have been banned and saying "this is how it was going to be done"?"Michael Chertoff, US director of homeland security, said the idea had been to detonate liquid explosives on board multiple commercial aircraft ... US President George W Bush discussed the plot "in recent days" with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, according to White House spokesman Tony Snow. " (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4778891.stm)

Darat

10th August 2006, 09:16 AM

OK, a few things according to the BBC.

Darat - they say the duty free shops were closed early on in the alert.

...snip..

Ah right - when I was listening in the morning they were saying that people were being searched again at the boarding gate including the items they'd purchased.

Q-Source

10th August 2006, 09:22 AM

Boy, that's a lot of detail on the plot. I do sincerely hope that none of the arrested were in any way inconvenienced or made uncomfortable in order to obtain that information.

Boy, this happened in the UK, not in the US. You can bet they will get a fair treatment and maybe in a few years time they will be eligible for parole.

Rat

10th August 2006, 09:25 AM

I'll concede that assertion to you if you'll agree that everyone on my airplace was lucky I didn't have violent intentions. Certainly no security is 100%, but you'd think our "elevated security" would at least catch a noticable weapon in a carry-on luggage. I wonder how many other instances there are out there when a weapon was inadvertantly brought onto an airliner?
I seem to recall (though I can't place it) that Randi had an anecdote about taking a gun on board by accident, and even seeing its outline on the x-ray machine, which the person monitoring it failed to notice. It's easily done.

Cheers,
Rat.

Darat

10th August 2006, 09:28 AM

Boy, this happened in the UK, not in the US. You can bet they will get a fair treatment and maybe in a few years time they will be eligible for parole.

Yep :( They might even find it useful if they want later on to have a career as a MP (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1303355.stm).

Jaggy Bunnet

10th August 2006, 09:28 AM

"Michael Chertoff, US director of homeland security, said the idea had been to detonate liquid explosives on board multiple commercial aircraft ... US President George W Bush discussed the plot "in recent days" with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, according to White House spokesman Tony Snow. " (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4778891.stm)

I see no reference to several people, separate liquids, gameboys or cd players.

This was the "lot of detail" to which Jocko referred. Seems pretty clear from the measures enacted that the threat was supposed to involve liquid explosives.

Upchurch

10th August 2006, 09:44 AM

slightly off topic, but the local conservative talk show guys on the drive to work this morning were saying how the British success in routing out these terrorists is evidence that the US Patriot Act is working. :boggled:

Bikewer

10th August 2006, 09:49 AM

Those of us in law enforcement have been getting intelligence bulletins from the FBI and other sources regarding various liquid explosives. These range from nitroglycerin to a number of newer mixtures which can be fabricated from easy-to-obtain materials.
It's apparent that the formulas for making these things have been circulating in terrorist groups for some time.

One problem with such explosives is that they are frequently unstable when mixed, making transportation problematic. Thus, the idea of "binary" explosives where the stable components might be mixed after boarding an aircraft.
Such things could easily be concealed in a wide variety of containers; hence the prohibition against carrying nearly any liquid in carry-on luggage.

Detonation of these rather-unstable compounds is relatively easy too, it can be accomplished in a variety of ways and does not require blasting caps or other readily-recognizeable explosives equipment.

Katana

10th August 2006, 10:08 AM

This morning on NPR, they had Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews discuss his thoughts on what they may have used to prompt the prohibition of all liquids today. He suspected that it was something called triacetone triperoxide (TATP). It evidently is a favorite among terrorists.

In keeping with what Bikewer said, it can easily be made from acetone, hydrogen peroxide (stronger than the typical medicinal), and an acid such as sulfuric acid. Scary thing is that the recipe is so easy to find on the internet. While things like extra-strength hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid aren't on the shelves of your average drug store, I suspect that they wouldn't be too hard to obtain if the person was determined enough (and had enough money).

This was the stuff that Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, had tried to explode when his attempts at lighting the fuse were foiled.

Q-Source

10th August 2006, 10:21 AM

Yep :( They might even find it useful if they want later on to have a career as a MP (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1303355.stm).

This is even worse, just a few days ago:

Home Secretary John Reid lost his Court of Appeal to take away the right of nine Afghan hijackers to work and enjoy other freedoms in the UK. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04082006/344/reid-loses-hijackers-rights-ruling.html

So, if you are from Afghanistan, if you hijack an airplane with more than 100 passangers and land illegally in UK, don´t worry, you can hold to your human rights. The government will provide you with work permits to enjoy your well deserved freedom. If someone, even a Home Secretary dares to question this, his case will be dismissed ipso facto.

This is stupid but it´s true.

Katana

10th August 2006, 10:35 AM

This is even worse, just a few days ago:

Home Secretary John Reid lost his Court of Appeal to take away the right of nine Afghan hijackers to work and enjoy other freedoms in the UK. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04082006/344/reid-loses-hijackers-rights-ruling.html

So, if you are from Afghanistan, if you hijack an airplane with more than 100 passangers and land illegally in UK, don´t worry, you can hold to your human rights. The government will provide you with work permits to enjoy your well deserved freedom. If someone, even a Home Secretary dares to question this, his case will be dismissed ipso facto.

This is stupid but it´s true.

If they haven't been working all this time, who has been supporting them? Just curious because here are nine guys who can't be sent back to their home country but people don't want them to be able to work in the U.K. I hear what you're saying. It seems a bit odd, but I guess I'd rather have them working to earn their keep than living off taxpayers' money for the rest of their lives (if that's what has been happening).

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 10:40 AM

This is stupid but it´s true.From the link:
In June 2003 their convictions were quashed by the Appeal Court, which found they had been acting under duress.
What, they were forced to highjack the plane? :confused:

Jocko

10th August 2006, 11:02 AM

You seem to be assuming that this information has been beaten out of the people arrested. You are wrong.

Well, they apparently weren't shot on a subway platform, so I guess that opens up a lot of possibilities. But I assume nothing; you, on the other hand, seem to have assumed a raft of things.

In the first place, the UK is a civilized country, and in the second place, clearly the police knew all about the plan in advance. Hence the arrests.

Are you assuming no coercion was involved? If you are, just say so and quit your affected "civilization."

StewartP

10th August 2006, 12:02 PM

For me, it means hoping my French is good enough that I buy hair shampoo and conditioner when I land. We always do carry on...who wants to wait for bags? Well for some decent shampoo and conditioner I will!Shampoo is easy - it's called "Shampooing" and conditioner is "apres shampooing"

sophia8

10th August 2006, 12:22 PM

I'd heard once (I can't provide the source though) that a woman was forced to drink the breast milk she had bottled for a long flight. Airport security forced her to drink out of each separate bottle, thus contaminating the milk and rendering it useless for her infant. Err... If she was travelling with her baby, why did she need to bottle her breast milk?

Regnad Kcin

10th August 2006, 12:39 PM

As a precaution in light of the unpredictability of her laser breasts going off at any time. Geez, even I know that!

Jon_in_london

10th August 2006, 12:54 PM

Wehey! Loads more overtime!

Jon_in_london

10th August 2006, 01:03 PM

From the link:
What, they were forced to highjack the plane? :confused:

Yes. You see the itsy-bitsy darling terrorists had to hijack the plane to escape the Taleban!

Azure

10th August 2006, 01:32 PM

So where are the CT'ers and their spin of how the British are making all this up to fearmonger the public into believing the threat of terrorism is real?

Jon_in_london

10th August 2006, 01:35 PM

So where are the CT'ers and their spin of how the British are making all this up to fearmonger the public into believing the threat of terrorism is real?

Busy trying to forget what they did last summer.

brodski

10th August 2006, 01:35 PM

So where are the CT'ers and their spin of how the British are making all this up to fearmonger the public into believing the threat of terrorism is real? here http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3078

This is the UK forum which accused Johnny Pixels of being a sooper seekrit advanced AI dis-info forum bot. See we can match the Americans for PCT nuttiness.

Azure

10th August 2006, 01:39 PM

here http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3078

This is the UK forum which accused Johnny Pixels of being a sooper seekrit advanced AI dis-info forum bot. See we can match the Americans for PCT nuttiness.

Oh God.

I had a long arguement today with an idiot that believes Britain made up the plots themselves.

I didn't get anywhere. Who'd a thunk? :eek:

BPSCG

10th August 2006, 01:44 PM

brodski

10th August 2006, 01:47 PM

Oh God.

I had a long arguement today with an idiot that believes Britain made up the plots themselves.

I didn't get anywhere. Who'd a thunk? :eek:

The question is "why?", Tony Blair has nothing to gain from this latest terror alert as
1) The Tories are always perceived as stronger on security issues than Labour, a sense of fear is only going to drive people towards the Tories and
2) Many people blame the terror attacks and threats in the UK on Tony's support for US foreign policy, the Iraq war in particular, so that's more votes lost.
her Magnesite's loyal government in waiting is much more likely to benefit from todays news than Blair is, so unless we believe that Blair is actually secretly working for Conservative Central office*, the CT is totally without motive.

*An anagram of Tony Blair PM is "I'm Tory plan b", coincidence? :p

Cylinder

10th August 2006, 02:04 PM

So where are the CT'ers and their spin of how the British are making all this up to fearmonger the public into believing the threat of terrorism is real?

Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2447273) (don't worry - you won't have to read deep)

They want us too scared to think but they also want us conditioned to reflexively comply with even the most absurd request/demands of authority.

We are being groomed to be the obedient prols they desire and most people don't even pause in the cattle line to think about it.

It's not going to stop till people make it stop.

chillzero

10th August 2006, 02:28 PM

I see no reference to several people, separate liquids, gameboys or cd players.

This was the "lot of detail" to which Jocko referred. Seems pretty clear from the measures enacted that the threat was supposed to involve liquid explosives.

So I paraphrased a little - I had been away reading up on news sites about what was happening, getting some facts, instead of merely speculating.

an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780815.stm?ls
"Security experts believe the plan was to detonate liquid explosives on up to 10 planes.
The terrorists would have smuggled it on board hidden in drinks, electronic devices and other "common objects". "

or:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230417,00.html
"Security sources believe liquid explosives would have been carried separately onto flights and then mixed on board to make a lethal concoction."

(edit to remove some suplerfluous stuff that came with cut and paste)
Good Q&A:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778889.stm

Meadmaker

10th August 2006, 02:53 PM

Err... If she was travelling with her baby, why did she need to bottle her breast milk?

The alternative was to expose her breasts in public, which some people find uncomfortable.

The only time we travelled when my son was that small, my wife had no such reservations, and the little guy made not a peep all the way from Detroit to Philadelphia.

Azrael 5

10th August 2006, 03:11 PM

Why no magazines or papers on board? Was it to foil a new Al-Quieda plot to hold up a 747 with The Daily Mail and OK! magazine!?

Loved George Bush's quote
"Id like to thank the government of Tony Blair for busting this plot!"

Yeee-haww! :D

mummymonkey

10th August 2006, 05:09 PM

Sky News are reporting that the police have found a "Martyrdom Tape"

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230573,00.html

Cylinder

10th August 2006, 05:26 PM

SteveGrenard

10th August 2006, 06:14 PM

Pretty soon passengers will be banned as well.

The price we are paying for these whackos is beyond belief.

gumboot

10th August 2006, 06:31 PM

Pretty soon passengers will be banned as well.

The price we are paying for these whackos is beyond belief.

Oh, but they're not really a threat!

:rolleyes:

-Andrew

steverino

10th August 2006, 10:48 PM

Hey, Darat, just looking at your sig line. How do you feel right now about Solzhenitsyn's suggestion that there are really no "evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds..."?

BPSCG- Wow! I had just read Darat's sig line and was thinking the exact same thing when I read your above comment. I don't have the nerve to bring this up to Darat as I have 17,900 fewer posts. So I am glad you did it for me.:D

shecky

10th August 2006, 11:22 PM

Clearly, the solution to this is to ban all air travel.

The Don

10th August 2006, 11:40 PM

BPSCG- Wow! I had just read Darat's sig line and was thinking the exact same thing when I read your above comment. I don't have the nerve to bring this up to Darat as I have 17,900 fewer posts. So I am glad you did it for me.:D
I read the quote to be "if only all the evil deeds were done by a small group of evil people then that'd be fine but all of us have the capacity for evil"

I don't see a contradiction.

I'm also uncomfortable as portraying anyone as entirely evil regardless of what they have done or intend to do, it's too simplistic

Darat

10th August 2006, 11:54 PM

BPSCG- Wow! I had just read Darat's sig line and was thinking the exact same thing when I read your above comment. I don't have the nerve to bring this up to Darat as I have 17,900 fewer posts. So I am glad you did it for me.:D

Perhaps you can expand this and explain your reasoning to indicate how this current plot undermines the ideas in my signature line?

Jaggy Bunnet

11th August 2006, 12:19 AM

So I paraphrased a little - I had been away reading up on news sites about what was happening, getting some facts, instead of merely speculating.

an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780815.stm?ls
"Security experts believe the plan was to detonate liquid explosives on up to 10 planes.
The terrorists would have smuggled it on board hidden in drinks, electronic devices and other "common objects". "

or:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230417,00.html
"Security sources believe liquid explosives would have been carried separately onto flights and then mixed on board to make a lethal concoction."

(edit to remove some suplerfluous stuff that came with cut and paste)
Good Q&A:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778889.stm

And I have no problem with that. However I do remember the inaccuracies, errors and outright lies that "sources" confirmed to the media immediately after the Stockwell shooting.

"Security experts" is normally media speak for "we phoned up someone who knows about this sort of thing" and looks like pure speculation. Security sources tends to mean somebody official but who is not willing to go on the record - the track record of such sources in previous incidents leaves me skeptical.

Jocko seemed to assume that because there was detail, this information must be accurate - I remain to be convinced.

steverino

11th August 2006, 12:49 AM

Perhaps you can expand this and explain your reasoning to indicate how this current plot undermines the ideas in my signature line?

Um, OK. The guys plotting to blow up airplanes- These are the evil guys.
The families boarding the planes in London to visit their aging Grandma in Miami- These are the good guys. You folks can be as "uncomfortable" as you want about being simplistic about assigning good and evil, but please consider what evil Anne Frank possessed, and what good was in Hitler's heart.

richardm

11th August 2006, 01:19 AM

Why no magazines or papers on board? Was it to foil a new Al-Quieda plot to hold up a 747 with The Daily Mail and OK! magazine!?

Dunno what the rationale is behind that. Perhaps the pages can be soaked in explosive and detonated once they dry out. I did see on the news people tearing odd pages out of books - someone had a page of Sudoku to stop them going mad on the flight (good luck with that after your pens and pencils have been confiscated). Presumably if it were one small page then it wouldn't have the explosive effect of the whole booklet.

Mind you The News of The World is always claiming explosive revelations, so perhaps there's just some confusion there.

richardm

11th August 2006, 01:26 AM

her Magnesite's loyal government in waiting is much more likely to benefit from todays news than Blair is, so unless we believe that Blair is actually secretly working for Conservative Central office*, the CT is totally without motive.

Yes but it distracts the newspapers from what's happening in Lebanon which is even more of a vote loser

From one of those links above:

It wouldn't surprise me if another Lockerbie happens today or in the next few days.....just to beef up the storyline and to ramp up the fear amongst the unthinking electorate.

Do people really believe that a British Government would do that to its own citizens? What is the matter with them? :(

Darat

11th August 2006, 01:31 AM

Um, OK. The guys plotting to blow up airplanes- These are the evil guys.

I totally agree with describing what they apparently planned to do as being evil.

The families boarding the planes in London to visit their aging Grandma in Miami- These are the good guys. You folks can be as "uncomfortable" as you want about being simplistic about assigning good and evil, but please consider what evil Anne Frank possessed, and what good was in Hitler's heart.

I think you have missed the point of the quotation I use - let me give you the whole passage it is taken from:

Gulag Archipelago
...snip...

I credited myself with unselfish dedication. But meanwhile I had been thoroughly prepared to be an executioner. And if I had gotten into an NKVD school under Yezhov, maybe I would have matured just in time for Beria.

So let the reader who expects this book to be a political exposé slam its covers shut right now.

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various stages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn’t change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.

Socrates taught us: Know thyself!

Confronted by the pit into which we are about to toss those who have done us harm, we halt, stricken dumb: it is after all only because of the way things worked out that they were the executioners and we weren’t.

...snip...

Darat

11th August 2006, 01:35 AM

Yes but it distracts the newspapers from what's happening in Lebanon which is even more of a vote loser

From one of those links above:

Do people really believe that a British Government would do that to its own citizens? What is the matter with them? :(

And also just why would a group of transitory politicians do this? What is their possible motivation?

Wudang

11th August 2006, 01:36 AM

The question is "why?", Tony Blair has nothing to gain from this latest terror alert as ...snipped

More backing for his beloved ID cards. That's a whole other topic. As someone who believes in personal liberty and knows a shed-load about large-scale IT projects let me just say "Do not get me started".

richardm

11th August 2006, 01:40 AM

More backing for his beloved ID cards.
That cock won't fight, anyway: all of the principle alleged terrorists arrested yesterday were born and raised in Britain. Even the two arrested in Pakistan were British citizens. They would all have had valid ID cards.

The Don

11th August 2006, 01:59 AM

I for one do not believe that any of the cock-ups in the past have any evil motives I think that the authorities had crappy intel and perhaps over reacted but that's it.

If the thwarted attack turns out to be much the same then I think that they were trying to do the best job they could with the information they had. There is no conspiracy in my opinion

Darat

11th August 2006, 02:01 AM

And at least one is apparently a recent convert to Islam.

From today's "The Wrap" (email news digest)

...snip...

It did not take the papers long to discover the names of the 24 British men arrested yesterday - most in London, two in Birmingham and others in the Buckinghamshire commuter town. The Mirror chooses to splash with a photograph of one of them. "This is 21-year-old Don Stewart-Whyte, aka Abdul Waheed," it says. "Six months ago he converted to Islam."

"He was always such a pleasant young man, always so polite, very helpful," a neighbour tells the Telegraph. "He always acknowledged us and we always used to wave to him." His late father was a Conservative party agent, and he married a Muslim woman a month ago.

"Only Muslim families can stop this infamy," says the paper. "The long march to win back disaffected Muslim youth must start in the home."
Or, as Richard Littlejohn puts it in the Mail - which illustrates his column with a cartoon of an official taking a bottle of milk away from a distressed mother and screaming baby - "I don't remember Knacker of the Yard phoning the Bishop of Stepney before he arrested the Kray Twins."

In general, the leader writers have a tough time of it: the Mail concedes that "no words are adequate" to describe the sheer scale and horror of the plot, and then gives over a full page to them. "The Daily Mail bows to no one in its admiration for the decent, hard-working Muslim majority who abhor the dreadful things being done in the name of Islam. Indeed, it is likely that concerned Muslims played a part in foiling this latest terrorist conspiracy. That said .. "

"Immigrants were led to believe that no effort at integration whatsoever was required on their part," says the Express. "Separate schools, home districts and even sporting teams were the order of the day. And the government encouraged it."

...snip...

brodski

11th August 2006, 02:24 AM

More backing for his beloved ID cards. That's a whole other topic. As someone who believes in personal liberty and knows a shed-load about large-scale IT projects let me just say "Do not get me started".Of course the government has already spent a shed load of money putting the It infrastructure for ID cards in place, this was one of the original intentions behind the photo driving license, they have since decided that if they do go for ID cards, they'll need a whole new system.
And people think they're competent enough to cover up 9/11.

BPSCG

11th August 2006, 05:07 AM

I think you have missed the point of the quotation I use - let me give you the whole passage it is taken from:Okay, look, I understand Solzhenitsyn's point - that we are what we have been molded to be, and really do not act from free will. I even believe that, fervently; anyone who doubts me should click on the first item in my sig.

So we are all capable of good, and all capable of evil. But there are those who are capable of much more evil than society is willing to endure, and much more intense evil. Those who try to blow up airplanes fall into that group. I'm sure they consider what they are doing to be good, not evil. But is it really so hard for the rest of us - the vast majority of people (including Muslims, let it be said) - to be horrified by it, to denounce it as evil, and to say, yes, indeed, they are evil people insidiously committing evil deeds, and it is necessary to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. Not because they have chosen to be evil - again, that is how they have been molded by outside influences - but because their existence is a threat to the existence of the rest of us. They are saying, "If you don't kill us, we will keep trying to kill you."

And that is evil. Regardless of what may cut through the hearts of the rest of us.

tkingdoll

11th August 2006, 05:26 AM

Plane Terror Plot Thwarted (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1230417,00.html)

I've said it before and I'll say it again - the United States has no greater freind than the United Kingdom.

Rule Brittania and all that stuff!

But it was Brits trying to blow up the planes in the first place :confused:

RyanRoberts

11th August 2006, 05:37 AM

Darat

11th August 2006, 05:43 AM

...snip...

So we are all capable of good, and all capable of evil. But there are those who are capable of much more evil than society is willing to endure, and much more intense evil. Those who try to blow up airplanes fall into that group. I'm sure they consider what they are doing to be good, not evil.

I don't take his words to be describing a position of moral relativity -I think he makes it clear that some acts are evil - and that is something I agree with (all the time of course recognising the why I think some acts are evil to be quite subjective). What they apparently planned to do was an evil act - whether they believe it to be good or not.

But is it really so hard for the rest of us - the vast majority of people (including Muslims, let it be said) - to be horrified by it, to denounce it as evil, and to say, yes, indeed, they are evil people insidiously committing evil deeds, and it is necessary to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.

You've introduced a subtle difference which makes me think you may have misunderstood something of what he is saying. His comments are not about what to do with someone who has committed an evil act but about recognising that evil acts are carried out by people unfortunately just being people. In otherwords there is no mark of Cain by which we can recognise the people who will commit evil - we all carry that mark.

Not because they have chosen to be evil - again, that is how they have been molded by outside influences - but because their existence is a threat to the existence of the rest of us. They are saying, "If you don't kill us, we will keep trying to kill you."

And that is evil. Regardless of what may cut through the hearts of the rest of us.

I agree - but see the above.

Darat

11th August 2006, 05:54 AM

Yep, Brits. Same air, same media, same neighbors, same government. Yet a 'troubled' adolescent (and who wasn't) and son of a Tory activist can plot to kill his fellow citizens for the crime of not submitting to the faith that enslaved him.

It's time we took our heads out of the sand. Unless we see a zealous enthusiasm from our local representatives of the Umma for rooting out the lunatics in their midst they are all suspect, every last damn one.

Just been listening to one being interviewed on the "THE WORLD AT ONE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/wato/)" on Radio 4, really good to hear. He was saying "we [Muslim communities] need to stop acting like victims" and was speaking a lot of sense even had a few pointed remarks aimed at criticising an article I suspect was from the MCB in the Times for taking the victim route. (He was one of the founders/leaders of the new Muslim grouping launched last month: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5193402.stm)

The voices are out there unfortunately they don't get much media attention and there has been too little attention paid in the past to who has been "on the streets" speaking to these youths.

RyanRoberts

11th August 2006, 06:13 AM

Cool, I have seen highly articulate non-crazy muslims complaining on line about feeling misprepresented by the likes of the MCB. It's about time they stood up. The victim card will no longer wash. I suspect those Muslims may be easily accused of not being Muslim enough however..

Lets hope they can carry sufficient theological weight to not just be accused of apostacy.. Jihad is deeply embeded in Islamic theology.

Mephisto

11th August 2006, 06:20 AM

I seem to recall (though I can't place it) that Randi had an anecdote about taking a gun on board by accident, and even seeing its outline on the x-ray machine, which the person monitoring it failed to notice. It's easily done.

Cheers,
Rat.

I believe that Randi would have had a much more difficult time with the authorities had he been caught - I'm just a nobody with a knife, James Randi, on the other hand, is a dangerous provocateur capable of raising the ire of free thinkers everywhere. Certainly NOT the kind of guy you'd want running around proving how inept our airport security is. :)

Thanks Rat.

BPSCG

11th August 2006, 06:24 AM

I believe that Randi would have had a much more difficult time with the authorities had he been caught - I'm just a nobody with a knife, James Randi, on the other hand, is a dangerous provocateur capable of raising the ire of free thinkers everywhere. Certainly NOT the kind of guy you'd want running around proving how inept our airport security is. I remember that commentary. I like to think that the screeners didn't catch it because Randi, being a magician, is a master of the art of misdirection.

Hmmm. I wonder how much "misdirection training" terrorists get.

Mephisto

11th August 2006, 06:42 AM

Err... If she was travelling with her baby, why did she need to bottle her breast milk?

Maybe she didn't want to plop her breast out to feed her child on the airplane. Why does anyone ever bottle breast milk? Americans are uptight about breast feeding in public, no doubt because our religiousity has made us forget that breasts are for feeding babies and NOT pornography. :)

Mephisto

11th August 2006, 06:50 AM

I remember that commentary. I like to think that the screeners didn't catch it because Randi, being a magician, is a master of the art of misdirection.

Hmmm. I wonder how much "misdirection training" terrorists get.

I wonder why I didn't get caught, not being a master of misdirection. Maybe my numerous "strawmen poisoning the well" took their attention away from the weapon. ;)

You do bring up an interesting question though; how much misdirection training DO terrorists get? Do middle-eastern terrorists have a color-coded security alert system that they can raise when they lose popular appeal? Do they point out all the illegal immigrants entering their countries when they don't want any attention paid to how horribly the war is going for them? Do they have a non-issue like gay marriage to point at so people won't worry about the climbing casualty rate? ;)

Apollyon

11th August 2006, 07:09 AM

Maybe she didn't want to plop her breast out to feed her child on the airplane. Why does anyone ever bottle breast milk? Americans are uptight about breast feeding in public, no doubt because our religiousity has made us forget that breasts are for feeding babies and NOT pornography. :)
Some Americans are uptight about it and it's more likely due to upbringing and the old Puritan ethic that still pervades society rather than "religiousity." I'm willing to bet there are plenty of non-religious American women who bottle their milk for such occassions simply because they don't feel comfortable exposing their breasts in public. That comfort level is not exclusive to American women either. Besides that, breasts are not strictly for feeding babies. They do have a sexual connotation in many societies.

Personally, my only opinion on breast feeding is "Lucky kid."

SteveGrenard

11th August 2006, 07:13 AM

If there are muslims on board the plane and they see a woman breatfeeding they will be offended. If they are offended they will stone the mother.

We must not offend the muslim passengers.

brodski

11th August 2006, 07:16 AM

If there are muslims on board the plane and they see a woman breatfeeding they will be offended. If they are offended they will stone the mother.

We must not offend the muslim passengers. Yes, because mainstream Christian US society has been so tolerant of public displays of nipples.

SteveGrenard

11th August 2006, 07:24 AM

But does mainstream Christian Society stone the mother? WHich is equivalent in most instances to killing her?

brodski

11th August 2006, 07:38 AM

But does mainstream Christian Society stone the mother? WHich is equivalent in most instances to killing her? Well, when you give me an example of a woman on a plane being stoned for breastfeeding I'll stop characterizing your post as an ill-informed, bigoted straw man.

SteveGrenard

11th August 2006, 08:20 AM

roger

11th August 2006, 08:29 AM

I remember that commentary. I like to think that the screeners didn't catch it because Randi, being a magician, is a master of the art of misdirection.

Hmmm. I wonder how much "misdirection training" terrorists get.On screening issues, this article (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/7/26/1497/94515) is pretty interesting. I'm not sure of the veracity of the article, but it sounds like you are trained only to identify the specific test gun/knife/etc that you will be periodicially tested with while on the line. The company responsible for you gets fined whenever you miss one.

Pretty damning, if true.

Mephisto

11th August 2006, 08:36 AM

Well, when you give me an example of a woman on a plane being stoned for breastfeeding I'll stop characterizing your post as an ill-informed, bigoted straw man.

I can give you an example of a woman being chastised for "accidently" exposing her breast in public - and a nipple wasn't even involved (it was covered by a ninja throwing star). I remember the outcry; CHILDREN WERE WATCHING!

God forbid that children should see a breast while watching a sporting event where grown men wreak violence upon each other while chasing a little ball. ;)

Mephisto

11th August 2006, 08:39 AM

Women are stoned by devout muslims, even those who are not extremist jihadists, for showing an ankle. It's provided for in the Shari'a. That's the body of koranic law which your friendly neighborhood muslim would like to impose on you if he has his way.

Plus I was being sarcastic but not necessarily far fetched.

The Bible provides plenty of instances whereby the devout can stone an individual. I wonder what the ratio of Muslims who would act on Koranic law versus the ratio of Christians acting according to the Bible would be? I think they would both easily be categorized as fanatics.

richardm

11th August 2006, 08:45 AM

The Bible provides plenty of instances whereby the devout can stone an individual. I wonder what the ratio of Muslims who would act on Koranic law versus the ratio of Christians acting according to the Bible would be? I think they would both easily be categorized as fanatics.
But the New Testament appears to be used as a brush to paint out any inconvenient bits of the Old Testament, which gets Christians off the hook. A more interesting case might be to look at a country founded especially for and by followers of the Old Testament, and see how many people they stone. I can only think of one. Anyone been stoned to death for saying "Jehovah!" in Tel Aviv lately?

Given that there is more than one country that enacts Sharia law and all that imples... well, I'd regard them as fanatics but there are evidently thousands of people who regard it as quite reasonable behaviour.

Mephisto

11th August 2006, 08:46 AM

Some Americans are uptight about it and it's more likely due to upbringing and the old Puritan ethic that still pervades society rather than "religiousity." I'm willing to bet there are plenty of non-religious American women who bottle their milk for such occassions simply because they don't feel comfortable exposing their breasts in public. That comfort level is not exclusive to American women either. Besides that, breasts are not strictly for feeding babies. They do have a sexual connotation in many societies.

Personally, my only opinion on breast feeding is "Lucky kid."

I'll agree with your last sentence (:)), but I fail to see the difference between Puritanical and religiousity. One of the definitions of Puritanical is:

"Rigorous in religious observance; marked by stern morality."

Fanatical Muslims might even be described as Puritanical, but it obviously doesn't refer to their religion. Who has objections to nudity or breasts without resorting to religion as justification?

Mephisto

11th August 2006, 08:52 AM

But the New Testament appears to be used as a brush to paint out any inconvenient bits of the Old Testament, which gets Christians off the hook. A more interesting case might be to look at a country founded especially for and by followers of the Old Testament, and see how many people they stone. I can only think of one. Anyone been stoned to death for saying "Jehovah!" in Tel Aviv lately?

Given that there is more than one country that enacts Sharia law and all that imples... well, I'd regard them as fanatics but there are evidently thousands of people who regard it as quite reasonable behaviour.

You're right of course, but Israel's fanaticism lies elsewhere. Fortunately, Jewish people all over the world are smart enough NOT to interpret the Bible literally, unlike most fundie Christians who constantly refer to the O.T. to justify their extreme disdain for anything they disagree with.

Apollyon

11th August 2006, 08:57 AM

I'll agree with your last sentence (:)), but I fail to see the difference between Puritanical and religiousity. One of the definitions of Puritanical is:

"Rigorous in religious observance; marked by stern morality."

Fanatical Muslims might even be described as Puritanical, but it obviously doesn't refer to their religion. Who has objections to nudity or breasts without resorting to religion as justification?
Well this is straying pretty far from the topic, but the puritan ethic also embodies the morality without the religious aspects. It has pervaded society as a whole to impact far more than just those who are religious.

To test out my theory, gather up the women at work who are not religious and consider themselves "liberal." Then ask them to show you their breasts. ;)

BPSCG

11th August 2006, 09:06 AM

To test out my theory, gather up the women at work who are not religious and consider themselves "liberal." Then ask them to show you their breasts. ;)Okay, done.

Now, can I send you the legal and medical bills? I have three broken teeth.

Mephisto

11th August 2006, 09:14 AM

Okay, done.

Now, can I send you the legal and medical bills? I have three broken teeth.

:) Well, you wouldn't have broken teeth if your jaw hadn't dropped to the ground. ;)

I think that the tendency to NOT disrobe on request has more to do with a woman's modesty and the possibility that most women (and even some men) are not sexually promiscuous.

Apollyon

11th August 2006, 09:55 AM

I think that the tendency to NOT disrobe on request has more to do with a woman's modesty and the possibility that most women (and even some men) are not sexually promiscuous.
ime, blood alcohol level plays a factor too. :)

But modesty is most often what prevents women, religious or not, from busting out (so to speak) in public to feed their baby. It's a taboo that has become a societal norm and is a morality that has gone beyond any real religious influence or significance, even if that is where the taboo originated.

BPSCG

11th August 2006, 10:39 AM

From Time magazine's web site today (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html):
In the two or three days before the arrests, the cell was going operational, and authorities were pressed into action. MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post has this item (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001654.html):
One U.S. intelligence source, however, said some of the British suspects arrested had made calls to the United States.Emphasis mine. You mean wiretapping? Government spying on phone conversations?

Well, I'm shocked. This is an outrageous civil liberties violation.

DaChew

11th August 2006, 10:49 AM

The so called "terrorists" should be released immediately.

BushCheneyHitlerBurton violated their human rights. U.S. intelligence sources have revealed that the "suspects" made phone calls to the U.S.. Where are the warrants? There is no mention of any warrant being obtained.

Read it yourself. It's true.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001654_pf.html

Again, no mention of warrants.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications.

ETA:
NOT FAST ENOUGH

DaChew

11th August 2006, 10:50 AM

BPSCG

11th August 2006, 10:58 AM

Darn it BPSCG....shhh... there, there, hush, my little sock puppet...:rub:

Darat

11th August 2006, 11:32 AM

From Time magazine's web site today (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html):

Meanwhile, the Washington Post has this item (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001654.html):
Emphasis mine. You mean wiretapping? Government spying on phone conversations?

Well, I'm shocked. This is an outrageous civil liberties violation.

Not in the UK it isn't and I still sceptical about this nugget of information. The UK has for decades had systems in place for monitoring all international calls, I can't see any reason we would need the USA to inform us of a call from the UK to the USA. (And to understand the extent of existing powers for just the police - never mind security agencies - look at this site: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/nov/01uk-eu-police-access-to-data.htm)

Jon_in_london

11th August 2006, 11:39 AM

Not in the UK it isn't and I still sceptical about this nugget of information. The UK has for decades had systems in place for monitoring all international calls, I can't see any reason we would need the USA to inform us of a call from the UK to the USA. (And to understand the extent of existing powers for just the police - never mind security agencies - look at this site: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/nov/01uk-eu-police-access-to-data.htm)

It just cant be used as evidence.

Darat

11th August 2006, 11:41 AM

It just cant be used as evidence.

...yet... :)

daredelvis

11th August 2006, 11:45 AM

Emphasis mine. You mean wiretapping? Government spying on phone conversations?

Well, I'm shocked. This is an outrageous civil liberties violation.

Not if they had the freaking warrant provided for by law.

Daredelvis

BPSCG

11th August 2006, 11:46 AM

The UK has for decades had systems in place for monitoring all international calls, Didn't know that. How do you feel about that, today?

Darat

11th August 2006, 12:24 PM

Didn't know that. How do you feel about that, today?

Same way I did back in the 80s when I was protesting about it - not very much!

ETA: You may find this interesting from 1988. http://duncan.gn.apc.org/echelon-dc.htm

Jon_in_london

11th August 2006, 12:33 PM

Didn't know that.

http://www.gchq.gov.uk/

steverino

11th August 2006, 01:14 PM

I don't take his words to be describing a position of moral relativity -I think he makes it clear that some acts are evil - and that is something I agree with (all the time of course recognising the why I think some acts are evil to be quite subjective). What they apparently planned to do was an evil act - whether they believe it to be good or not.

You've introduced a subtle difference which makes me think you may have misunderstood something of what he is saying. His comments are not about what to do with someone who has committed an evil act but about recognising that evil acts are carried out by people unfortunately just being people. In otherwords there is no mark of Cain by which we can recognise the people who will commit evil - we all carry that mark.

I agree - but see the above.

Darat- Wow, that Solzhenitsyn dude is quite a brain. I couldn't even spell his name without looking him up on Amazon. Still, MY pea-sized brain has a problem with your point of view ala Solzhenitsyn. You seem vulnerable to the following Liberal trap: 'Because a human being has a point of view, it therefore has validity.' In other words, 'we should consider Osama's point of view simply because he has one, and therefore maybe we had 9-11 coming on some level.' In my opinion, these terrorists are sick and evil, even though they fasten themselves to a point of view, along with their bombs. I may have at one time possessed a pot plant, or told a girl I loved her to get her into bed, but I don't recall ever blowing up any tourists. So I would fall in the catagory of not being evil. I also want to add that your Solzhenitsyn quote, and your adhearance to it, has the odor of "I was only following orders," that old Nazi defense.

Darat

11th August 2006, 01:32 PM

Darat- Wow, that Solzhenitsyn dude is quite a brain. I couldn't even spell his name without looking him up on Amazon. Still, MY pea-sized brain has a problem with your point of view ala Solzhenitsyn. You seem vulnerable to the following Liberal trap: 'Because a human being has a point of view, it therefore has validity.' In other words, 'we should consider Osama's point of view simply because he has one, and therefore maybe we had 9-11 coming on some level.'

Not at all - as I said his point is not about moral relativity/equivalence it is about who can be evil.

His universal statement is really "we can all be saints and we can all be demons but most of us most of the time are a bit of both".

In my opinion, these terrorists are sick and evil,

Yes they are or as I would look at it - their acts are all evil and we need to do whatever we can to stop them.

even though they fasten themselves to a point of view, along with their bombs. I may have at one time possessed a pot plant, or told a girl I loved her to get her into bed, but I don't recall ever blowing up any tourists. So I would fall in the catagory of not being evil. I also want to add that your Solzhenitsyn quote, and your adhearance to it, has the odor of "I was only following orders," that old Nazi defense.

What the... ?

steverino

11th August 2006, 01:51 PM

Not at all - as I said his point is not about moral relativity/equivalence it is about who can be evil.

His universal statement is really "we can all be saints and we can all be demons but most of us most of the time are a bit of both".

Yes they are or as I would look at it - their acts are all evil and we need to do whatever we can to stop them.

What the... ?

So we disagree. The Nazi reference refers to when soldiers perpetrated acts of genicide, and then were on trial, they said they were only following orders. In other words, they were saying that they were not evil people, but were swayed to do evil acts by a powerful authority. This fits in comfortably with our discussion here.
Also, I will agree with you that "most of us are a bit of both." Again, your flaw here is that while, OK, most of us are, some of us are in that distinct catagory of being evil, and not just a bit...

brodski

11th August 2006, 05:56 PM

So we disagree. The Nazi reference refers to when soldiers perpetrated acts of genicide, and then were on trial, they said they were only following orders. Yo do realize that the "i was only following orders" was a successful defence for the regular soldieries that used it? It was only those that had issued illegal orders who could not successfully use it.

Polaris

11th August 2006, 07:16 PM

I have no idea what US airport security is like post 9/11 (it's almost 7 years since I ventured to your shores), but I do know that a number of UK transport security experts have been sharing their experience with US airport security. Of course there are a number of differences, principally that flying is seen as much more of a routine necessity in the US as compared to the UK, and also, the British actually enjoy queuing. ;)

Compare that to the US where the word "queuing" doesn't exist - and is replaced by the synonymous phrase "standing in a Goddamn f****** line!"

Polaris

11th August 2006, 07:27 PM

Yep :( They might even find it useful if they want later on to have a career as a MP (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1303355.stm).

Whew - that's even more pathetic than Chappaquiddick.

Polaris

11th August 2006, 07:33 PM

WildCat

11th August 2006, 07:35 PM

The extra-strength hydrogen peroxide is easily purchased at pool supply stores. Acid is the tough one.
Sulfuric acid can be found at just about any hardware store.

Polaris

11th August 2006, 07:39 PM

Clearly, the solution to this is to ban all air travel.

The compromise of course is to ban all Muslims from flying. Or just let them fly and keep everybody else off for their own safety. :boggled:

Polaris

11th August 2006, 07:47 PM

Polaris

11th August 2006, 07:49 PM

merentha

11th August 2006, 07:56 PM

Women are stoned by devout muslims, even those who are not extremist jihadists, for showing an ankle. It's provided for in the Shari'a. That's the body of koranic law which your friendly neighborhood muslim would like to impose on you if he has his way.

Plus I was being sarcastic but not necessarily far fetched.

Over in Singapore and Malaysia, there are plenty of Muslim women dressed in clothes that would make Britney Spears proud. No stoning I'm aware of.

steverino

11th August 2006, 08:01 PM

Women are stoned by devout muslims, even those who are not extremist jihadists, for showing an ankle. It's provided for in the Shari'a.
.

I traveled through Asia in 1977 and got stoned thanks to a devout Muslim. I didn't have to show him my ankle, just a couple of dollars.

:cool:

Azure

11th August 2006, 09:46 PM

Well, when you give me an example of a woman on a plane being stoned for breastfeeding I'll stop characterizing your post as an ill-informed, bigoted straw man.

LOL.

Sorry, I just had too....back on topic folks. :)

Azure

11th August 2006, 09:47 PM

The compromise of course is to ban all Muslims from flying. Or just let them fly and keep everybody else off for their own safety. :boggled:

I'm pretty sure if we did that, terrorism would stop almost 100%. :eek:

Darat

12th August 2006, 02:18 AM

So we disagree.

Is it you don't think they apparently planned to carry out evil acts or you don't agree that the potential for doing evil is within us all?

Darat

12th August 2006, 02:20 AM

The compromise of course is to ban all Muslims from flying. Or just let them fly and keep everybody else off for their own safety. :boggled:

And how will you determine who is Muslim and who isn't?

gumboot

12th August 2006, 07:16 AM

Yo do realize that the "i was only following orders" was a successful defence for the regular soldieries that used it? It was only those that had issued illegal orders who could not successfully use it.

No it wasn't. A large number of regular "John Smith" death camp guards were convicted of war crimes.

It fact at the Nuremberg Trials the principle of war that it is illegal to obey an illegal order was established.

Many of the lower ranked soldiers were not sentenced to prison or death, but that was more to do with Germany needing men after the war than anything else. They were still found guilty of war crimes.

Also, unlike the head honchos, the lower level officers and soldiers were tried in German courts, rather than by military tribunals.

-Andrew

Polaris

12th August 2006, 07:20 AM

And how will you determine who is Muslim and who isn't?

The Bacon-Daquiri Test.

Darat

12th August 2006, 07:29 AM

The Bacon-Daquiri Test.

And by many accounts that would have failed with at least some of the 9/11 terrorists...

bigred

12th August 2006, 08:27 AM

Have these POSs been decapitated yet? Slowly? I'm waiting impatiently for the online video.

Darat

12th August 2006, 08:30 AM

Have these POSs been decapitated yet? Slowly? I'm waiting impatiently for the online video.

Who?

Polaris

13th August 2006, 07:21 AM

And by many accounts that would have failed with at least some of the 9/11 terrorists...

Yeah, but with those names it was a dead giveaway.

HeavyAaron

13th August 2006, 08:50 AM

I may have at one time possessed a pot plant, or told a girl I loved her to get her into bed, but I don't recall ever blowing up any tourists. So I would fall in the catagory of not being evil.

So you don't think being lying shmuk druggy qualifies as evil?

Aaron

Katana

13th August 2006, 10:01 AM

Dave_46

13th August 2006, 03:05 PM

Well I live near High Wycombe which is being featured on many of the news reports ...snip...

Sorry, late to this thread. I live in High Wycombe, and it was a bit disconcerting to be watching TV in France on Thursday and see pictures from High Wycombe, with police sealing off houses.

My daughter was out last night (Saturday) with a friend who lives next door to one of the houses raided. They went to her friends house, and the police activity was apparently more intense then than on Thursday. I passed a local pub (The Dolphin) this afternoon, which is next to the wood being searched, and there were police vehicles in the pub car park, which must have done wonders for their business. I heard on a BBC news broadcast that a marquee and powerful lights had been set up, so that searching could continue after dark.

Dave