BBC Reports UK-U.S. Terror Plot Foiled 1792
j823777 was one of several readers to point out a BBC report that "A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the U.S. has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said. It is thought the plan was to detonate up to three explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.
Police have arrested 21 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months. Security at all airports in the UK has been tightened and delays are reported. MI5 has raised the UK threat level to critical — the highest possible."
spo0nman adds a link to the Associated Press's coverage.
Update: 08/10 12:57 GMT by T : Several readers have pointed out new restrictions imposed as a result of this plot on passengers' carry-on luggage. In the UK, nearly all possession (including laptop computers) must be carried in the cargo hold; while their rules don't yet go quite as far, U.S. airlines are stepping up their enforcement of carry-on-restrictions, including banning substances like toothpaste.
Good work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if this plot is real, and in a sense I wish it is because otherwise it's a sad day for our democracies, it's not normal that the agencies that have foiled it can brush public scrutiny with the now-usual "it's a secret, trust us" statement.
Not foiled - disrupted (Score:4, Interesting)
Mind you, it might actually serve some interests better for tens of millions of people to be worried, inconvienced, or annoyed than for airliners to explode.
So, for several months... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, the perpetrators have been arrested, and anyone else who may have been involved is potentially compromised, so will probsbly not risk carrying it out. As a result, an attack is less likely. So the alert level has gone up.
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Correction to the subject (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good work (Score:2, Interesting)
I was just thinking that motivated suicide bombers could hold alot of liquid in condoms in body cavities - or swallowed (not a good time to have an arab name going through check in methinks).
But I think a well moitivated suicide bomber with an ounce of intelligence could get through no matter what the security precautions are.
On a side note - thank christ for the reduced on board luggage rules. Why the hell does anyone need more than their book & a passport anyway?
I've had far more flights ruined by some dickhead taking up the entire overhead compartment, blocking the entire plane at entry/exit while they collect their reams of carry on, etc than I've had flights ruined by terrorists.
Blanket Measures. I'd get smothered. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless these restrictions are lifted, I don't think I'll ever be able to fly anywhere. Yes, I understand the need to a sensible level of security, but I see this as going too far.
I used to suffer from depression, and it has left me with the remnants of social anxiety. I can function out and about quite easily, but with very definite limits. Crowds still mess my head up. Queues fill me with dread. I need to travel with something to take my mind of things - often to shut out the world and people around me.
I also have a fair bit of not-exactly-cheap equipment that goes with me everywhere. There are things that do not get let out of my site. My laptop, for example, comes to work with me when I have a house-inspection. I trust my colleagues more than an inspector I've never met. Yet I'd be expected to fly long-haul without carrying it in my arms?
Yes, I know I'm probably slightly paranoid. But for one thing I've had things broken before when they were with people I didn't know or trust. And secondly, it's another holdover from my depression.
And right this very minute I feel extremely uncomfortable. I see an all-too-possible threat of increased security measures invading our lives to a greater extent, where the existing ones already feel too much.
Plus the idea of being stuck taking my holidays without ever leaving the UK[*] kinda fill me with dread.
[*] 'Cos I can't see these measures not spreading to Eurostar, somehow.
Re:Why oh why (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not why they don't target Greyhound. They don't target Greyhound because we haven't made it fun yet. Blowing up an airplane is a game. We gave it rules. If you can get a bomb on without the screeners finding it, you win. And it's not that hard of a game to win if you're not an idiot and haven't already lost from the start by virtue of having talked to the wrong person while someone was watching, so they get the satisfaction of both crippling us and beating us at our game. It's not a conscious thing, but we gave them something to fixate on and obsess about, and that's not good.
Unfortunately, there's no going back. If we make flying like riding a bus now, the game doesn't just end. We lose 15 or 20 planes in the free-for-all before it gets boring for them, and obviously that can't happen. So we're screwed.
We might as well just move to the end right now: Everyone wears paper hospital gowns with no underwear on planes after having changed in front of an official, and all cargo is shipped seperately via UPS.
We'll still lose 2 planes to poison gas being blown into pilots' faces from regurgitated containers, but at some point you have to just say, "Meh." Of course, if it were me, that point would have been a long time ago.
I felt... naked (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't take my flight in the end, despite it being one of the few that wasn't cancelled - when I finally got to the gate they still had an additional delay of over an hour and I was only due to be there one day. With half of it gone, and the prospects of being able to fly back to the UK this evening looking distinctly dubuious, I offloaded myself.
This was obviously an inconvenience for me, but I have nothing but praise for our security services who foiled this and the airport staff who managed to handle the whole thing pretty well, considering.
As has been reported, items allowed were limited to wallets/travel documents and baby/health-specific products. However, many of us brought books and papers with us also. Interestingly, Duty Free shops were open airside - although I didn't see if any electronics shops were. The focus this morning was really on what can be brought from landside to airside and they didn't seem to have thought about what you buy airside so much (although I would speculate that electronic items bought airside do not pose such a threat in that trrrsts would use pre-modified devices to detonate explosives). The search at security was a remove shoes, belts etc. job - rather like being in the US
It will be very interesting if this policy is made permanent. Like many companies mine has a policy of not putting laptops into checked luggage - for good reason. And when you are on the move much of the time you need your tools to keep productive - I've previously found time in the lounge or on board to be really valuable sometimes. However, I think in light of all the other ways that security can be compromised this can't continue as an indefinite measure - the risk:hassle/cost ratio is all wrong.
No, it's a good thing (for us) (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah. They'd rather that the planes had exploded. That plays much, much better on Al Jazeera. This cannot be cited as a "victory" by the jihaddis backing it, and if they had knocked the planes down, they'd also have the extra inconvenience and worry, as frosting on that cake. No... this is a win for the good guys, and probably really frustrating to the backers that obviously put a lot of time and effort into recruiting all of these would-be suicide bombers, training them, supplying them, etc. You can bet that there are some pre-recorded Zawahiri video tapes that will now not be seeing airtime since this attack was stopped.
Re:Government was already seeding their messages (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good work (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it is time for a paradigm shift in travel.
Long security lines, sneakier ways to get harmful equipment on and off the plane, these could all be resolved by forcing all luggage, save for your id and boarding pass, through baggage checkin. This also alleviates the resources (personnel, scanning equipment) needed at the security checkpoints.
Getting on and off the plane would be faster, as there would never be another wait for the people in front of you to get their luggage and then get off the plane; they just stand and go. Not to mention the fact that you never have to worry again about foot- and head-room problems. And how about cabin turnaround? The faster people get off the plane the faster the crew can turn around the plane for another flight.
Since using this plan infrastructure and maintenance costs could be reduced at the checkpoints, this money could be diverted by the airport to better baggage check-in and claiming areas. Maybe more seats, an RFID tag within an airline attached, removeable tag to let you know when your baggage has come off the ramp and into the area?
"So what do we do on a flight if we cannot bring MP3/Laptop/videogame onboard?" Up to the airlines, although to make travel more appeasing on longer flights I would suggest they look at their entertainment infrastructure within the planes. You can already do video on demand, and some flights have video games on demand. There is also music on demand, mostly for all genre. Maybe they could start to offer entertainment on demand based on your input before the flight.
For example, when you book your flight you can go online to pick your seat. Choose nothing else and get the default entertainment selections. If you want to be more specific, you can also pick from a vast selection of electronically delivered movies, games or music you want available to you during your flight. You pay the small rental fee (US$0.99 per item?) and you then access it via the seatback video screen and embedded controller. Of course they pass out headsets for privacy; they already do this! Get the basic ones for free and charge a rental fee for premium ones. Now everybody has some entertainment and no one has nothing, unless of course they choose nothing (a nap, perhaps?).
Re:Good work (Score:3, Interesting)
So who is going to pay for the insurance for damaged equipment?
I had a laptop trashed due to a sudden "no handluggage allowed" security alert at an airport.
Checkin staff insisted that all computers had to be put in the hold.
As anyone imagine, having a LCD bounced around a luggage routing system and then thrown onto
a pile of suitcases, before being trampled down to make more space and then thrown out back
onto another luggage routing system didn't do much for the fluorescent tube.
Re:TSA just anounced the new restrictions on (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Blanket Measures. I'd get smothered. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Election Time? convenient (Score:4, Interesting)
Has it ever occurred to you that election time is exactly when these clowns would deliberately seek to launch such an attack? Have you completely forgotten how Al Qaeda directly, and in their own favor, manipulated Spanish elections by being willing to slaughter Spaniards?
I would LOVE to see carry-on luggage banned (Score:3, Interesting)
The next problem I can see is people wearing vests with oversized pockets that will be sold specifically to circumvent the carry-on bag limit.
Another issue is that airlines have stopped serving meals and are encouraging people to carry their own lunches onto the plane. Perhaps seat 12C's cold drink is Binary Part A (which is reasonably safe to drink) and seat 20D's cold drink is Binary Part B (which is also reasonably safe to drink, although it tastes worse than Part A). The term "mystery meat" could also take on a whole new meaning when it is in a sandwich that is carried onto an airplane.
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:4, Interesting)
actually, it's far more effective to detonate them over land when they are at cruising altitude... remember Lockerbie... I certainly do... I did not enjoy my Christmas that year as I was a member of the search parties for the bodies... a right mess that was... spread over hundreds of square miles...
Re:I'm sorry I'll have to say this but... (Score:4, Interesting)
In case they are fabricated, it means that there is a group of people with access to power in the country, the likes of people that can do anything to do what is in their and their supporting circle's best interests, no matter what and how it is being done or who gets harmed.
this is way more dangerous than external terrorist threat, which can be avoided with adequate security.
It is much harder to get rid of the 'terrorists' at home.
that is silly (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you could make an explosive that is not a fast poison. If it is foul-tasting and you make a funny face, oh well... people do that with baby formula and saved breast milk too.
Basically: suspend a powdered high-explosive in something thick and colorless, like glycerin. (a powdered oxidizer should work well too, but I can't think of one that wouldn't be a fast-acting poison)
Sheesh... how hard is that?
Probably you could make an explosive mouse pad or keyboard rest.
AWESOME! (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, on a trans-atlantic flight, that one book had best be a thick one!
Paranoid Fuck! It's a Traffic Accident! (Score:0, Interesting)
I guess life won't be complete until we have a website for paranoid fucks like the OP to go to and post their paranoid questions. Which give me an idea...
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:3, Interesting)
I can only assume that Tony Blair at least wasn't particularly concerned about this "imminent threat"
I'm seeing this argument all over this threat. I've replied elsewhere, but will do so again here.
You would like him to cancel his pre-announced holiday, so he can be in the country to oversee an operation over which he has no jurisdiction nor direct involvement, while at the same time tipping off any terrorist (or potential terrorist) groups that something big enough (such as their imminent arrest) has come up to cause him to cancel his holiday?
If the PM cancels going abroad (for holiday or business) whenever there's going to be an anti-terrorist action, then terrorist groups will quickly learn to always plan their attacks for when the PM is meant to be away. If he cancels his holidays, you pack up, go underground, or act immediately, on the (fairly good) grounds that you're rumbled, and if you wait, you're going down Paddington nick in the back of a heavily guarded police van, and not coming out again for a long, long time.
The logic simply doesn't hold up when you think about it. It's like Churchill's decision not to increase defences in or around Coventry, despite having advance knowledge of a very heavy raid being due. He acted like he knew nothing. The raid went ahead. There were heavy casualties, which could have been prevented. But the German military remained unaware that many of their most important communications were being intercepted, decoded and read by British intelligence.
I'm not likening Blair to Churchill, or terrorist attacks to The Blitz; but the military strategy is sound; if you know about something, then act normal. Your intelligence and surprise remain intact, and they are two essential advantages in any conflict.
Re:Propaganda (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole reason we have a government with checks and balances is because the framers knew there will be issues with people correctly interpretign and applying laws...as well as abusing power.
and it's failed,
-lobbyists have infiltrated our government on all levels
-because our system only allows 2 parties to exist, the current 2 parties have so locked out the potential of any third party that several candidates in the last elected were arrested
also consider that most of the "abuses" you THINK you know about are part of the FUD spread by meembers of the press (and the legislature) with an agenda.
No, the media does not have a "liberal bias". Those accusations come from right wing extremists who consider the center to be "left".
The best example would be the 2000 election. Gore got WAY more negative press than bush did, and bush got more positive press than gore did. Yep, that dirty liberal media really were exercising an agenda of getting gore into office nitpicking him for things like taking credit for pushing to fund the development of the internet while refusing to scrutinize bush's many more serious flaws.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good work (Score:5, Interesting)
He did exactly that, a trial run...
He was using a contact solution bottle (with liquid explosives) and a casio watch as the detonator. He did a trial run to see if it would work, it did.
His plan was to hit 13 (if i recall correctly) planes at once. It was a bit of dumb luck that the plot was exposed and luckily it was prevented.
Now you are correct no one would try now, but without the new security enforcement + the massive coverage, it is very possible someone would still give it a shot. Also they are not claiming they ABSOLUTELY foiled the plot, maybe the terrorists were gonna try some other method that may not be completely known which could be quite powerful from their perspective. "Even with all the security we still managed to attack..." Look at some of the major terrorist plans, you can stop part of it, or you can stop ALL of it, and that is the most difficult. If part of the people were gonna use xyz explosives disguised in one form, and the other was using explosives disguised as a pair of sunglasses, the plan could quite easily go ahead.
It does seem like the govts are going full disclosure, particularly in the banned items and what is now gonna have to be in the cargo hold, because you cant keep those a secret and still be effective.
So hopefully they manage to get everyone that was going to be involved.
Re:Just in time for U.S. Mid-Term Elections (Score:4, Interesting)
And why wouldn't these have been caught by the chemical sniffers in the security check points? The hidden drug/bomb dogs in the airport? Why all the new security? Why wouldn't our normal airport security have caught these guys in the airport?
Note: You need a sizable hole punched in a plane to make it break up. An entire chunk of the fuselage needs to be removed. Explosive decompression doesn't occur from small basketball sized holes.
It's more than retarded, it's a huge risk (Score:3, Interesting)
Taking Northwest as an example-- the maximum luggage reimbursement allowance (what they'll pay you if they lose or break your stuff) is $2800. That's not enough to cover the laptop, let alone a suit or two and my precious, precious t-shirts. You can buy extra coverage for $1 per $100 of extra value, but even that has a maximum value cap at $5000.
A new laptop, a decent camera or PDA, and a couple of suits put you over that mark. The average business traveller is suddenly unable to even GET enough coverage for the luggage they're required to check. And heaven help you if you're like my coworkers who sometimes have to bring a pair of laptops with them-- you'll lose thousands if they lose or damage your luggage.
Given how they treat checked luggage, I'd be backing up important files onto the biggest SD card you can afford, and cramming it in your wallet.
Re:Good work (Score:3, Interesting)
Even the most expensive flights rarely serve anything that qualifies as edible on flights. Bringing your own food and drink on flights is necessary for anyone who does not want to start the holiday with a food infection.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:3, Interesting)
Course not - much more important to have the real terrorists alive for interrogation.
If you're a real terrorist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasin_Hassan_Omar [wikipedia.org] - refuse to surrender, have a rucsack with you (all allegedly), then you just get a taser.
[ Of course this was criticised by the head of the Met police, who couldn't do anythign else really since it undermines his we-must-shoot-innocent-people-in-the-head style of policing ]
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Really long reply (Score:2, Interesting)
1. The root causes you describe are IMHO correct. I could ramble on about the GINI coefficient (a measure of the distribution of income) and it's correlation to violent crime and war. Trust me, I wrote 65 pages on it.
2. However I don't' believe that the solution you propose is the only, the best or even a workable solution. We know that communism doesn't really work to well, even though there isn't a single real communist country in the world (ala Marx).
3. Ivory tower notions of equality of peoples across the world in representation, ability and wealth are at best ludicrous and at worst dangerous. Instead of looking at the issue purely as humanitarian; i.e. they starve and beg, let's look at it from a cost vs. benefit direction. If I may repeat your argument as I see it from another angle...
If the people who are so exploited have nil chance of being elevated from their situation, then they have little to loose and much to gain by grabbing at power/money/wealth by any means necessary. The only way to gain back that wealth and power is to force those who exploit them to surrender it. Exploited persons can't afford to strike, may don't have the ability to vote, and the foreign interests in their country certainly aren't going to just give them up. Lacking the ability to have a voice at the bargaining table or to make policy they have to do something to shift the paradigm. Guerilla warfare, revolution and terrorism are the only methods they have to make the vastly more potent exploiters reconsider their involvement and allocation in the area. This is how the States won Independence, don't let the revisionist histories fool you, we were really squirrelly, but not quite as mobile.
4. The solution that I believe would work is one that has been used fairly successfully for a long time. Those with the power to do such things change the method of compensation. Instead of simply paying for the oil rights in an area, build a park, a school, a (gasp) mosque. Don't just rape the underclass. Make involvement in their lives not strictly negative, while you get fat. Everyone can profit.
As for the ethnic conflicts...
um... buy them a Coke?!
Just my humble opinion.
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:3, Interesting)
And there's the fanatic Islamic intolerance where non-muslims (and often even muslims who have tolerance for others) have their heads chopped off (here's a nice representative picture [boortz.com]), and much of the rest of Islam sits back and nods saying "well, this is what happens to non-believers." In other words, they might not condone it, but they don't condemn it, either. And yes, in my experience, it is the majority. I don't fear for my life when I see obviously muslim practitioners (I'm not just talking about skin and hair color, I'm talking about religious garb), because I realize that the vast majority would not harm me. But they tolerate the intolerance of other muslims.
Obligatory numeric list (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Ban any liquid carry-ons
3. Bump up price of airline drinks
4. PROFIT!!!
5. Put ????? into a storage cupboard for later use on slashdot
Re:Good work (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you ever try buying anything in Germany on a Sunday (other than food in a restaurant)? Did you notice that the store was empty and the doors were locked? Maybe you thought you could get up early on Monday morning, buy some new clothing, and still make it to that critical meeting with the board of directors by 9:00. I guess you were utterly disappointed when you found out the stores wouldn't be open before 9:00. I don't know about you, but I don't find the thought of wearing the same clothes for nearly 72 hours straight to be very appealing.
Personally, if we are going to have to check pretty much all baggage we take with us on a trip into the cargo hold, I want different handling for personal items. I want higher insurance coverage and a promise of more careful handling (with severe penalties should that promise not be honored). I also want some sort of confirmation that my would-be-carry-on luggage has been safely loaded onto the plane before I board it. And if the airline somehow manages to "lose" my would-be-carry-on luggage, I sure as heck don't want to float the cost of emergency replacement out of my own pocket.
Re:completely secure! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Snakes on a Plane (Score:3, Interesting)
if you do nothing, there will still be new fundamentilist muslim terrorists. So why not at least try to do something? It's foolish to sit back and let someone attack you.
"The correct way is not using any force at all. If you know where they are, send that region economic help. Do everything to increase happiness in that region, and take no violent action whatsoever. If they blow up a plane, just shrug and say "losers", then move one. Don't pay alot of attention to it, they are, just losers after all."
Hehe, you're funny. Take a look at all the countries that did that during WW2. Hitler rolled his tanks in and the US ended up having to use force to bail them out. The world does not work the way you think. Leaders and extremists are not rational and they will not listen.
"Unless you take away the reasons they exist, they will exist. Violence can only take away these reasons by killing everyone, innocent civilians included. And that is not an expectable way."
The reason goes beyond the US. Their religion has existed for thousands of years. This is their reason, which may not stop until the entire world is muslim and under their control. Would that satisfy you?
Re:Good work (Score:5, Interesting)
The first rule of chess is this:
You're still thinking like a Westerner - you still look at behavior and expect to see behind it, the attempt to gain something or improve one's position.
Let's try thinking about it another way.
Imagine for a moment that you live in a country filled with impoverished people, a country whose only natural resource is owned by foreign corporations and protected by foreign militaries. Recall that your region of the world has been sliced, colonized, re-sliced, and re-colonized by those same foreigners more times than you can count.
Now imagine that every attempt your government has made to carve itself out a small piece of the world's ever-shrinking pie of resources and wealth, has failed miserably, that you are surrounded by poverty and misery everywhere and have absolutely no confidence that your life, or the life of anyone you know and care about, will ever be any better.
Anyone's worst enemy is a person who has nothing left to lose.
There's such a thing as a point of no return, where one's lot is concerned - where you no longer care about your life, or the lives of those you care about, being better - you want only to take mete out justice [or vengeance] to those who made it this way. The saying, "I don't care if I die, so long as I take you with me" applies.
And now examine the actions and behaviors of so many thousands of people and groups in the Middle East. So many have given up hope of life there ever being better, that their only resort is to destruction.
The terrorists are NOT trying to make their lives better, nor get anything in return for their efforts (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) - from their position, it makes sense simply to inflict as much damage as possible, because there's little else left for them to do.
I am neither advocating nor decrying that belief, state of mind, or behavior. I am only saying that that is what happens to humans who have been oppressed and who have suffered for too long and have no confidence that life will ever be different.
Re:Desperation (Score:3, Interesting)
Another answer, which is true for some terrorists (although not many), is sheer religious loathing. They hate the existence of people who don't follow the rules of their religion and strike out against them. The objective of such people is essentially to wreck the way of life of their targets.
In the middle east, they've been fighting wars over this on a regular basis for as far back as recorded history goes. The rest of the world occasionally gets dragged into it. We don't see much of them because mostly they hate the people near them far more than the ones in remote western countries... but sometimes a group of them comes over here to cause trouble.
There isn't much you can do about these people, although it should be noted that restricting freedom in the western countries is their objective, so creating such restrictions ourselves is in fact a form of surrendering.
Re:Good work (Score:4, Interesting)
I was just chatting with some of my co-workers who are heading out of country soon on business travel about having to check laptops. In our case, the laptops go through an export control process both from the US side and the country we travel too. We're supposed to be in control of the laptops in order to comply with the export license so I wonder how this change in carry on luggage affects export control.
I can't recall the specific Star Trek Voyager episode to link it but what happens when we start finding explosives surgically embedded into the terrorist? If terrorist are already willing to give their lives, they are just as likely to embed the explosive compounds into their body.
Re:Good work (Score:2, Interesting)
Correction: In 50 years, if we are lucky, we will know the truth. Doesn't anyone else think it's a bit odd that an event with such obvious echoes of 911 happens within two days after Lieberman lost the primary because of his stance on the war??? 21 arrests? Planes? On their way to America? It's all a bit too coincidental.
I RTFC, btw, and didn't see anyone else picking this up. Apologies if this is redundant.
"I want to ask you something. I don't care if you answer. [...] If our own government was responsible [...] Would you really want to know?"
Re:All simplistic theories aside.... (Score:1, Interesting)
While you're asking people to name some Muslims that preach tolerance w/o practicing taqiya, I could ask the same for Christians that are ignoring evangelism. You know, the whole 'convert everyone so that they believe that Jesus Christ is your lord and savior!' bit.
How many things are going on right now, even the United States, that are being as tolerant as they can be?
As for lying, every human being is capable of lying. Does that mean we should trust noone, even based on what religion they supposedly follow? Just because a religion tells you that you can't lie doesn't mean that they'll follow it.
It's too easy to point fingers at one particular religion. When we look at the big picture, perhaps we should be pointing them at everyone.
Re:Good work (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, I beg to differ [austinchronicle.com]..
He's already had a dry-run. Remember when the World Trade Center was attacked back in 1993? Remember who was president then? Yes, George Bush Sr. Remember what happened during that term? Desert Storm in Iraq. What did we try to do? Depose Saddam Hussein.
Who financed, trained and armed Al Queda back a decade or more ago, to help them push Russia out of Afghanistan? That's right, we did.
Osama knew precisely what would happen if he orchestrated an attack on the US again, while a Bush president was in office.
In the last 30-something presidents, we've seen two attacks on domestic soil from foreign terrorists (if you believe that 9/11 involved these foreign terrorists). Both attacks occured at the World Trade Center. Both attacks were under Bush presidencies. Both attacks resulted in an invasion of Iraq, and the attempted deposing of Saddam Hussein (Saddam, I should add, is theologically opposed to what Osama believes in, and would never support his efforts).
Let's not forget the $9 BILLION dollars that was lost [antiwar.com] after being hand-flown to Iraq, and the resulting investigation that Bush is trying to halt.
Google up the references, its all out there. Its all scary stuff.
Re:Good work (Score:1, Interesting)
You obviously don't know who our Deputy PM is. And, no, he has no business holding that post but he's appointed by the PM and until Blair goes (oh happy day!) we're stuck with the buffoon.
Still, it's been a good day for Bush; he's having difficulty not laughing about it; I've not seen his big stupid grin quite so big for some time.
Nitroglycerin...is a liquid (Score:2, Interesting)
When I first heard about this... (Score:3, Interesting)
After watching Die Hard 2 one evening quite a while back, I decided to research liquid explosives - because it was a movie, and it seemed plausible to have a 2-part mixed explosive (just like 2-part epoxy), and I did know about nitroglycerin...
What I remember finding was yes, there were such things as one part and two part liquid explosives - but nobody seriously considered them useful because while they were very powerful, they were also very unstable - mixed or unmixed! That is, even the components of a two part explosive were seriously unstable - not something you would want to play around with.
Heck - just last night I saw the Mythbusters episode where they try to make a homemade smokebomb using saltpeter and sugar, cooking it on a stove. Adam was mixing a batch, and was using what I think was a metal spoon (bad idea) and it caught on fire pretty quick (this particular "stunt" they were real stupid to pull inside a building - between it and the methane bubble column they made I am surprise they didn't burn the place down - you don't make homemade explosives indoors without taking any and all precautions, especially if you are new to the task!) - and that wasn't even a particularly unstable mixture (well, more unstable heated, I suppose).
Unless I am mis-remembering what I found about liquid explosives (which is always possible) - it makes a great plot device for a movie, but there is a reason we don't see these explosives used much anymore (we don't even see much use of nitroglycerin or nitrocellulose - aka guncotton - either).
So am I wrong (wouldn't be the first time)? Or am I right, and that this whole "liquid explosives going to be used by terruhists" is nothing more than maybe some cooked up FUD (or at worst, an actual plot in which the perpetrators weren't using liquid explosives, or if they were, would have killed themselves on the way to the airport)?
Re:What is the goal behind terrorism? (Score:3, Interesting)
The primary goal of Terrorism is to cause terror in the population.
The goal of causing terror in the population is to get them to do stupid, craven things, like give up freedoms, start wars, abandon civility.
The goal of causing your enemy to abandon civility, is that they lose the "moral high ground" - and then this makes it easier for the opposing guerilla force to get away with immoral tactics.
The goal of immoral tactics for a guerilla or insurgency is to allow them to fight more effectively than their better-trained, better-equipped, more-numerous foe, who are bound by rules of warfare - until they decide that those rules are an inconvenient luxury; because they're terrified.
Example:
Rockets fired at Israeli civillians got Israelis pissed off.
Israelis invaded Lebanon.
Bombed like mad to try to stop the rockets.
Killed civillians in collateral damage.
Israelis now look like the bad guys.
Hezbollah guerillas are now free to happily continue shelling civillians, hiding their equipment amongst civillians, etc. This allows them to be more effective a fighting force, due to the assymetrical nature of guerilla warfare (Hezbollah do not have satellite surveillance, air-defense radar, ships, planes, cluster bombs, etc.) - being able to complain about accidental civillian deaths, while purposely targeting the enemy's civillians suprisingly gives them a lot of milage in the press, and public sympathy.
The biggest mistake a terror victim can make, is allowing themselves to be terrorized.
That doesn't mean I don't think that we should not adopt tough air-travel security measures. But we should also respect civil liberties.
And the rules of warfare. They're not a luxury. They're who we are.
Our standards for our own moral conduct should be based on our values. Not on "slightly less horrible than the terrorists".
On that note, I'm happy to say that of late, the public at large isn't falling for this bullshit as much as they used to. They are still stampeding like scared sheep. But at least most people seem to grasp that Hezbollah's tactics are evil, while Israel's acting in valid self-defense. Hezbollah has not yet provoked Israel enough. They're probably going to need to field some chemical weapons to get Israel riled up enough to accomplish Hezbollah's goals. All Hezbollah needs to do is not be destroyed utterly, in the eyes of the muslim world. Israel has a much more difficult (more likely impossible) victory condition: kill every last Hezbollah member, and make sure nobody ever claims to be Hezbollah after that, and/or get Hezbollah to withdraw their stated goal of destroying Israel.
Re:Open Letter Reply / Rebuttal to Osama bin Laden (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you yet read Osama's "Letter to America" [guardian.co.uk]?
One of the first reasons given for the attack is our support of Israel:
"The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased."
So, do you condemn our support of Israel? You must realize that, without our support, Israel will be "erased". Are we wrong to help prevent the erasure of Israel?
He also tells us what we can do to get back on his good side:
"(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest."
And apparently Bill's blow-job in the White house is one of the worst kinds of events:
"(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations? "
Do you really believe we deserve to be attacked because the president got is cigar smoked?