Slashdot Mirror

There is Google, you know. Since the USA is too easy as a target, I'd point out the Philip Cross affair (as a reminder, Jimbo Wales is married with Christine Rohan, Tony Blair's former secretary), then the Australian Government editing spree, and finally the Zionist editing courses.

Besides propaganda, a good starting point on the truthfulness of Wikipedia would be 10 Most Notorious Wikipedia Editing Scandals, outdated, bust still good.

You despise him because you're an induhvidual eh. Apparently the idea is that if Assange is anything less than perfect we can easily betray him and your standards are so very high that everything Assange has contributed melts away when you consider the charges. Here's an article about the UK pressing Sweden to keep up chasing Assange.
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
I've started following Craig Murray's blog on this. Some kind or rapist that Assange, a real Weinstein! There are degrees of indecency, and if even Sweden had to be pressed to go after Assange I doubt any other country would have.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk...

Like... this poison?

Many thanks for the link !!!!

Like... this poison?

As far as Amber Rudd is concerned anyone who disagrees with her isn't a "real" person anyway. See https://www.craigmurray.org.uk...

Daily Mail is a tabloid.

But even that is better than the "usual media outlet" used by Craig Murray (and most of the right-wing blogs "reporting" his words) - Alex Jones Bitch! Two days BEFORE the Daily Mail interview.
You know... the inter-dimensional baby-sacrificing lizard-men guy.

Which is where that Craig Murray story started in that form - where it's a talk about him being center stage, claiming everyone else is wrong.
Back then they still had to cherry pick the actual Guardian article where Murray's stance was mentioned as an "opposing view" to the title and the core of the article.
CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election, say reports

Isn't it great that now tabloids are giving time directly to Murray, so you can quote a rag without linking to the article where he comes off as profanity slinging loon?
Or better yet! His blog.
Where he rants about the conspiracy to remove that Guardian article (while begging people to buy his book) from the Guardian's front page.

While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming â" incredibly â" that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.

Apparently, Murray doesn't understand the concept of a dynamic web page.
But he sure as hell leans towards conspiracy theorist way of thinking, doesn't he? Can't find that link... must be a conspiracy to hide it from you.
Just like when you spam people with your conspiracy theories and no one rushes to your blog - it must be Facebook conspiring against you.
Good thing that "calling out Facebook" still works. Or as some might call it - asking his followers to spam his link around.
All 650 of them, which by his math means his blog should get 200k+ hits. But he'll clearly settle for a dozen or so.

And while we're talking about his blog... do notice how his claims change over time.
First he, in his own words, "met the person who leaked them" while talking to the Guardian and quoting himself from the same "hidden" article.
By the time he talks to Daily Mail - it's "leakers" and "sources" and "identities" (Oh my!).
And he's gone from "I've met the person who leaked them" to this:

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C.
He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Apparently, now he DIDN'T actually meet the person who leaked them. Or was that persons?
It's kinda hard to keep up with all the... how does Murray put it? Ah yes... Utter bullshit.

BUT WAIT! THAT'S NOT ALL!

As a good pal and collaborator of Julian Assange he's coming to Assange's defense once again.
Cause if what CIA claims is true - Assange is nothing but a "useful idiot" to Putin. Which makes Murray into a... what exactly?

Funny thing is... Last time he came to Assange's defense like that he publicly outed one of the women who were accusing Assange of sexual assault.
This time he does no such thing while admonishing "truly execrable" journalists for treating "the US government, for goodness sake" (actual quote) as a credible source.
While HE and Assange ARE credible because "I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling" (another actual quote).

And yet he doesn't out the source he claims t

Daily Mail is a tabloid.

But even that is better than the "usual media outlet" used by Craig Murray (and most of the right-wing blogs "reporting" his words) - Alex Jones Bitch! Two days BEFORE the Daily Mail interview.
You know... the inter-dimensional baby-sacrificing lizard-men guy.

Which is where that Craig Murray story started in that form - where it's a talk about him being center stage, claiming everyone else is wrong.
Back then they still had to cherry pick the actual Guardian article where Murray's stance was mentioned as an "opposing view" to the title and the core of the article.
CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election, say reports

Isn't it great that now tabloids are giving time directly to Murray, so you can quote a rag without linking to the article where he comes off as profanity slinging loon?
Or better yet! His blog.
Where he rants about the conspiracy to remove that Guardian article (while begging people to buy his book) from the Guardian's front page.

While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming â" incredibly â" that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.

Apparently, Murray doesn't understand the concept of a dynamic web page.
But he sure as hell leans towards conspiracy theorist way of thinking, doesn't he? Can't find that link... must be a conspiracy to hide it from you.
Just like when you spam people with your conspiracy theories and no one rushes to your blog - it must be Facebook conspiring against you.
Good thing that "calling out Facebook" still works. Or as some might call it - asking his followers to spam his link around.
All 650 of them, which by his math means his blog should get 200k+ hits. But he'll clearly settle for a dozen or so.

And while we're talking about his blog... do notice how his claims change over time.
First he, in his own words, "met the person who leaked them" while talking to the Guardian and quoting himself from the same "hidden" article.
By the time he talks to Daily Mail - it's "leakers" and "sources" and "identities" (Oh my!).
And he's gone from "I've met the person who leaked them" to this:

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C.
He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

Apparently, now he DIDN'T actually meet the person who leaked them. Or was that persons?
It's kinda hard to keep up with all the... how does Murray put it? Ah yes... Utter bullshit.

BUT WAIT! THAT'S NOT ALL!

As a good pal and collaborator of Julian Assange he's coming to Assange's defense once again.
Cause if what CIA claims is true - Assange is nothing but a "useful idiot" to Putin. Which makes Murray into a... what exactly?

Funny thing is... Last time he came to Assange's defense like that he publicly outed one of the women who were accusing Assange of sexual assault.
This time he does no such thing while admonishing "truly execrable" journalists for treating "the US government, for goodness sake" (actual quote) as a credible source.
While HE and Assange ARE credible because "I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling" (another actual quote).

And yet he doesn't out the source he claims t

With that heuristic, how about the part where Wikileaks hasn't released any documents that were proven to be fake?

I see they've recently put up a response to this: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/russian-bear-uses-keyboard/

There are other sources claiming Craig picked up the emails in a park in DC and that the main motive was how Bernie Sanders was thoroughly shafted in the primaries. I'd prefer a better source than the Daily Mail, but that's who interviewed him: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

That's a fascinating article, actually. Why don't we look at the evidence they present to support their claims?

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.

So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to.

AKA anonymous leakers, a basic reporting tool.

The leakers don't publicize their names because they're not supposed to be leaking the information, but the reporter can vouch for the fact that they are senior officials with access to the information.

And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite.

No there aren't, at least not in this article.

Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof?

Because a lot of the evidence comes from confidential sources like CIA spies.

Or prosecute someone?

Who? Vladimir Putin?

The FBI and other agencies don't fully endorse that view, but few officials would dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm Clinton's candidacy by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats.

So the FBI is willing to put their name on this saying it's not true

I'm not sure how you read that sentence and came up with that interpretation.

The FBI did not say it was false that Russia was trying to elect Trump. The FBI, and every other agency that investigated it, said they agree that Russia was trying to hurt Clinton, but they don't know if the intent was merely to destabilize the US or to actually have Trump win the election.

And NBC simply labels this as a "Russian operation" despite failing to present any evidence of that.

Because that's been well established for months.

You can read all about the bad jouranlism behind this conclusion if you wish.

And have a good laugh at the "analysis" within. He simply dismissed all of the evidence of the hacking group intruding to the DNC network. Has Assange even disclosed how he knows that the "leaker" is a DNC insider and not some Russian operative claiming to be one?

Back on topic, let's not forget that they brought up the 17 intelligence agencies again. Would it kill you guys to actually name them? It's also misleading, because it comes from the directors (political appointees)

Who else is going to endorse the statement except the director? And you really think that not only did 17 directors all endorse a false statement, but that no one in any of their agencies leaked evidence to the contrary?

I love how they don't bother to link to the actual statement lest someone actually read what it said. It's not based on anything of substance as anyone can read. They essentially say this is totally something Russia would like to do.

No. They essentially say these hacks fit the profile of other attacks that have been tied to Russia.

That's a fascinating article, actually. Why don't we look at the evidence they present to support their claims?

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.

So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to. And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite. Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof? Or prosecute someone? Maybe more of those banking restrictions they place on particular individuals? Oh, right.

The FBI and other agencies don't fully endorse that view, but few officials would dispute that the Russian operation was intended to harm Clinton's candidacy by leaking embarrassing emails about Democrats.

So the FBI is willing to put their name on this saying it's not true, but the anonymous people with rumors are going to say our allies gossiped about this? And NBC simply labels this as a "Russian operation" despite failing to present any evidence of that. We already discussed just yesterday how Podesta fell for a simple phishing scam, but presumably here they're talking about the DNC leaks, which Wikileaks says came from a DNC insider. You can read all about the bad jouranlism behind this conclusion if you wish. They're simply laundering anonymous rumors with no factual basis and referencing each other's stories that have no factual basis. The emperor has no clothes.

You know it's bad when my own Slashdot comments scooped the NYT on that Podesta email story by weeks and given that I provided more actual, verifiable sources than their article. Seriously, if you can't even beat Slashdot comments by some random guy on the internet, maybe it's time to give it up, guys? You don't even bother to link to the actual sources lest someone do a real investigation, what a pathetic joke.

Back on topic, let's not forget that they brought up the 17 intelligence agencies again. Would it kill you guys to actually name them? It's also misleading, because it comes from the directors (political appointees), specifically it was the: "Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security "

The latest intelligence said to show Putin's involvement goes much further than the information the U.S. was relying on in October, when all 17 intelligence agencies signed onto a statement attributing the Democratic National Committee hack to Russia.

I love how they don't bother to link to the actual statement lest someone actually read what it said. It's not based on anything of substance as anyone can read. They essentially say this is totally something Russia would like to do. Also, we've seen random probes from Russia. Which everyone who has a network has seen all the time (same for China, incidentally), making it utterly meaningless. Everyone with an SSH server has seen this kind of crap and Slashdot has reported many such stories in the past, like this one. A nice quote from the comments in that story sums it up: "If you truly expect no traffic from those places, dropping China, Brasil and Russia from ever reaching your ssh port is a great idea."

Let's also not forget that the DHS was

The Russian hacker thing is especially bad because I've seen how many people can't comprehend that there are no less than 3 different leaks in play here. Or especially they conflate Hillary's private email server with the DNC leaks. Yes, there probably are some emails common to all the dumps--Podesta certainly emailed Hillary & the DNC and vice versa--but they could not have been obtained all in the same way, as we will see below:

Hillary's emails

Allegedly hacked from her home server, but we have no logs of this. She turned over paper copies. Some redacted emails (on paper) were released by the FBI. This has never been fully turned over to the public (or to the people investigating Benghazi). Trump joked that Russia (or whoever) could always release these after the fact, but nobody ever has released them all, including Hillary herself. We have posts by /u/stonetear on Reddit, who was a staffer there, talking about selectively wiping emails in the right time frame. All of this is public evidence that has been seen (and archived) by many people, unless someone wants to claim that /u/Spez edited that in to make Hillary look bad :)

Podesta's Gmail account

This was hacked by a very simply spear phishing email. It's DKIM validated by both Hillary & Google's servers, so anyone claiming this is fake can be proven wrong mathematically. Google signs them with the b and bh parameters (body & body hash) so no, it doesn't just cover the headers, but the body too. And no, there is a way to revoke the keys. Go look up the selector in the DKIM header if you know how, both keys are still there as of right now.

We also have good reason to believe they fell for this, both because we can see the staff saying this is real and because bit.ly has that link being clicked on twice in the relevant time frame as you can see from their stats page for the link: https://bitly.com/1PibSU0+

That bit.ly link resolves to a .TK URL the lameness filter hates which is obviously fake. You can see it from the previous stats page if you're curious. The TK domain is Tokelau, which a territory of New Zealand, if you were wondering. The phishing email itself claims there were hack attempts from the Ukraine.

DNC Leaks

This is alleged to have been leaked by a DNC insider. Wikileaks pointed out the suspicious death of DNC intern Seth Rich who was murdered but not robbed in the middle of the night. They have put up a reward for information on his killer(s). At this time, no one has been identified as the leaker, though there are a lot of stories quoting anonymous insiders claiming circumstantial evidence. There was also the 17 agencies of the USIC (i.e., the Coast Guard & co.) whose director put out a statement saying this was exactly the kind of thing Russia might do, but they did not give any specific evidence therein.

You can find more discussion about that here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

No, Russia didn't.

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

@Coren22: "Yes, conspiracy theories surely explain why he had sex with a woman while she was asleep after she told him no."

Except she couldn't decide what really happened until she discussed it with her friend the police interrogator and the very next day she appeared at a press conference as Assanges press secretary.

Interrogator in the Assange case friend with woman accusing Wikileaks founder.

'Anna Ardin deletes a blog entry on how to get revenge on unfaithful lovers.'

'Swedish chief prosecutor Eva Finné dismisses all charges'

This is worth a read. "Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak" It explains the methodology used in searching the documents. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk...

It's BS that this is being filtered through the Western media.

It's a shame that this is being filtered through the Western media. The whole trove should be shared.

The whole thing should be shared.

Five Reasons the MI6 Story is a Lie

From the link;

The Sunday Times has a story claiming that Snowden’s revelations have caused danger to MI6 and disrupted their operations. Here are five reasons it is a lie.

1) The alleged Downing Street source is quoted directly in italics. Yet the schoolboy mistake is made of confusing officers and agents. MI6 is staffed by officers. Their informants are agents. In real life, James Bond would not be a secret agent. He would be an MI6 officer. Those whose knowledge comes from fiction frequently confuse the two. Nobody really working with the intelligence services would do so, as the Sunday Times source does. The story is a lie.

2) The argument that MI6 officers are at danger of being killed by the Russians or Chinese is a nonsense. No MI6 officer has been killed by the Russians or Chinese for 50 years. The worst that could happen is they would be sent home. Agents’ – generally local people, as opposed to MI6 officers – identities would not be revealed in the Snowden documents. Rule No.1 in both the CIA and MI6 is that agents’ identities are never, ever written down, neither their names nor a description that would allow them to be identified. I once got very, very severely carpeted for adding an agents’ name to my copy of an intelligence report in handwriting, suggesting he was a useless gossip and MI6 should not be wasting their money on bribing him. And that was in post communist Poland, not a high risk situation.

3) MI6 officers work under diplomatic cover 99% of the time. Their alias is as members of the British Embassy, or other diplomatic status mission. A portion are declared to the host country. The truth is that Embassies of different powers very quickly identify who are the spies in other missions. MI6 have huge dossiers on the members of the Russian security services – I have seen and handled them. The Russians have the same. In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled 20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our “diplomats” in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them.

4) This anti Snowden non-story – even the Sunday Times admits there is no evidence anybody has been harmed – is timed precisely to coincide with the government’s new Snooper’s Charter act, enabling the security services to access all our internet activity. Remember that GCHQ already has an archive of 800,000 perfectly innocent British people engaged in sex chats online.

5) The paper publishing the story is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is sourced to the people who brought you the dossier on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, every single “fact” in which proved to be a fabrication. Why would you believe the liars now?

There you have five reasons the story is a lie.

you can get married at all sorts of locations in Scotland - some really cool like the vaults under Edinburgh and in all sorts of buildings. As it happens we got married at Stirling Castle and had full run of the place which was a great laugh, she didn't like the idea of getting wedding photos straddling the huge cannons. I thought it would be funny. she not.

You may be aware - Scotland is due to have a referendum in 2014 to become an independent country and leave the rest of the UK. Whilst Scotland has it's own parliament and is a "country" - it is still controlled by a "union of parliaments" by Westminster, London. If Scotland votes yes then Scotland will be able to finance herself and make her own decisions. One of the key plans is to have a written constitution, although we helped write the USA's constitution, we were never allowed to have one by the UK. Scottish attitudes towards the human rights convention and the EU in general are quite different to that of the UK.

It is worth noting that there is a massive campaign of hate from the Unionist (i.e. "British") entities in Scotland which includes the state broadcaster. Scotland gets endless documentaries on "why Britain is great" etc and the BBC is heavily biased towards the Union.

often do not make right, as the old saying points out. It's an interesting legal question, though: Does a country have a right to use information illegally obtained by a third party to enforce laws against those implicated by that tainted information?

The position of the British government appears to be that receiving information illegally obtained elsewhere is legal under UK law: "In the meeting, Sir Michael Wood told me that it was not illegal for us to obtain intelligence from torture, provided someone else did the torture. " However, the House of Lords did rule that torture evidence can't be used in domestic proceedings.

("elsewhere" could be an interrogation room within the domestic borders of the U.S. or U.K. that is legally classified as Saudi/Uzbek/... soil due to embassy rights.)

Applying this to tax evasion, it would appear that the stolen bank account details could not be directly used as evidence in a UK court, but could be used by an investigation team to locate new data through lawful methods, and that new data will be admissible in UK courts.

This is why they want him to step aside. If Assange truly is this hero fight to cast light on a dark world he would step aside and allow wikileaks to go on without him.

The Russians call it Kompromat - the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure.

He has to stand his ground: If he steps aside at the first attack, he's no hero, he's just getting out of the way of the attackers so they can get to his friends.

... the use by the state of sexual accusations to destroy a public figure

Is she the foreign service agent or is that the other one?

(yes, I realize that could be a complete if unlikely coincidence).

Assange is on record saying that he didn't do what they said he did. If he's caught lying, Wikileaks is devastated. My suspicion is that Wikileaks is important enough to him that if he did it he'd take the lumps so that Wikileaks could stand.

This will work out well in the end. Either I've misjudged him and he's a scumbag and Wikileaks will recover with a non-scumbag leader, or it will be shown just how dangerous/important Wikileaks is that they'd set him up like that.

If it's the latter, Assange is going to be molested himself for several months by the Swedish government, but I don't think he expected this would be an easy burden.

Or perhaps the BBC's right-wing bias?

The BBC is everyone's scape goat; they're left wing, they're right wing, they're a government mouthpiece, they're too critical of the government, they spend too much on "high-brow elitist" programming, they're dumbing down too much, they waste too much money on sports rights, they don't have enough decent sports coverage. You name it, someone will be accusing the BBC of it.

Meh. As long as the whole violation of human rights thing has stopped I don't care.

The thing is, it hasn't. Shutting down one sector of Guantanamo Bay is not the same as cessation of human rights violations. Extraordinary rendition is still a fact. Moreover, there have been recent moves to reopen a USAF base in Kazakhstan - a base that was shut down under the Bush admin because of the appalling human rights track record in that country (and how bad does something had to have been for Bush to have distanced himself from it?). A former British ambassador to Kazakhstan has recently petitioned to have his evidence heard in a British hearing claiming that he saw intel passed to MI6 via the CIA that was obtained from extraordinarily renditioned prisoners in Kazakhstan ( http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/trying_again_my.html ) - a number of whom were tortured to death whilst extracting information. This is political sleight of hand - closing down a section of Gitmo gives the impression that something is being done to address human rights issues - shipping kidnapped suspects off to other parts of the world to be subjected to interrogation under torture simply reveals that all this human rights talk was simply lip service being paid to garner public support during the election campaigns.

That liquid bomb plot was complete BS.

"None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time," says Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray

In A.D. 1994, war was beginning:

In 1994, Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed started testing airport security. Yousef booked a flight between Kai Tak International Airport in Hong Kong and Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport near Taipei. Mohammed booked a flight between Ninoy Aquino International Airport near Manila and Kimpo International Airport near Seoul.

The two had already converted fourteen bottles of contact lens solution into bottles containing nitroglycerin, which was readily available in the Philippines. Yousef had taped to the arch of his foot a metal rod, which would serve as a detonator. The two wore jewelry and clothing with metal to confuse airport security. To support their claim that they were meeting women, they packed condoms in their bags.

[...]

On December 1, Shah placed a bomb under a seat in the Greenbelt Theatre in Manila to test what would happen if a bomb exploded under an airline seat. The bomb went off, injuring several patrons.

On December 11, 1994, Yousef built another bomb, which had one tenth of the power that his final bombs were planned to have, in the lavatory of an aircraft. He left it inside the life jacket under his seat (26 K) and got off the plane when it arrived in Cebu. Yousef had boarded the flight under the assumed name of Armaldo Forlani, using a false Italian passport. The aircraft was Philippine Airlines Flight 434 on a Manila to Narita route, stopping partway at Cebu. Yousef had set the timer for four hours after he got off the aircraft. The bomb exploded while the aircraft was over Minami Daito Island, near Okinawa, Japan. A Japanese businessman named Haruki Ikegami was killed after the bomb detonated. The Boeing 747-200 safely made an emergency landing in Naha, Okinawa. None of the aircraft's other 272 passengers or any members of the crew were killed, although 10 passengers in front of Ikegami were injured. Yousef then planned which flights to attack for Phase I.

For people who claim to be technical-minded, Slashdotters are remarkably ignorant of the effective use of technology.

The idea of using liquid explosives is not to set up a chemistry lab on the plane, but to smuggle the explosive on board more easily. The biggest problem with bombing a plane has always been the explosive itself. A detonator (and timer, if desired) is easy to conceal on its own, but the explosive is somewhat more difficult. Storing the explosive shared among several bottles and assembling the bomb on board is a quite effective strategy.

That liquid bomb plot was complete BS.

"None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time," says Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray

None of the alleged terrorists were convicted of trying to blow up an airplane. It is kind of hard to blow up a trans-atlantic flight when you don't have a passport.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7605583.stm

The lawyers in question are also those who tried to suppress Craig Murray's (former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan) allegations about Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov.