Slashdot Mirror
BBC Reports UK-U.S. Terror Plot Foiled
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.
From TFA: "Passengers are not allowed to take any hand luggage on to any flights in the UK, the department said."
Only passports, wallets.
The mind boggles. No computers, books, iPods, bottles of water, sunglasses?
Smoking, alcohol, and sex are already off-limits or difficult. I hope these are really short flights, and the planes have plenty of distractions for the passengers, otherwise we'll wonder if being blown up is not the better alternative.
First, congratulations to the Security Services for foiling this plot.
Did they need to detain someone for 90 days without trial to prevent this disaster?
Would ID cards have helped?
And how long before I can travel with my notebook onto an aeroplane again, as we all know a cargo hold is no place for a lithium ion battery?
I'm a bit confused about the 'alert levels'... They claim that the attack they have stopped wasn't going to happen today, are aware of no other impending attack and that the security measures are just precautionary and there is nothing to worry about. Yet they have used the highest alert level... Shouldn't that kinda be reserved for when they know an attack is about to happen?
i tical-agenda-o-meter'
Maybe they should just face the truth and rename the 'alert level' system to 'scare-the-shit-out-of-the-public-to-push-our-pol
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I am sorry, but with the last two excuses for terror attacks here in London, both where innocent people were shot for no good reason, I have my doubts. Both cases, the police held out on the facts, and continued deceiving people about what really happened for weeks. Each time, they mislead the media and the public by publishing lies, so that they could try to cover up their mistakes.
This is Scotland Yard, this is the UK secret services, this is reality. In a few months, if we are lucky, we will know the truth. And it will turn out that a few people had sent each other emails talking about blowing up planes, or some vague threats, nothing more.
I have no confidence in the UK, USA or even the Australian government. I suggest you question everything they do, and all that they report as fact.
There were no WMDs, Jean Charles de Menezes was not a terrorist, Mohammed Abdul Kahar and Abul Koyair were not planning on bombing anybody at all!
Of course, what will happen now is the the TSA or the FAA is going to ban all carryon liquids on air travel, and just for good measure will throw in food. So now that the airlines don't offer free food on flights, anyone want to start a pool on when the free sodas on the airplane will suddenly become very expensive? Put me down for Aug 18, 2006.
I'm not trying to suggest that this is some sort of plot by the airlines to charge higher drink prices. I don't think any such thing. I'm simply saying that this is the likely result of the inane government action that will innevitably follow: banning all carryon fluids on all commercial flights.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
The wolf likes it when the boy cries out, it makes things so much easier.
- These characters were randomly selected.
...more angry about the hassle this causes, than anything else? Terrorists spread terror, so they've hit their mark. By being foiled the plot does an amazing amount of damage on its own, spreading FUD.
I don't feel any safer by having my liquids/toenail clippers/pocket vibe/ipod/laptop taken away from me, when there are plenty of other ways to kill/be killed that airlines have no control over. I am more angry at terrorists for making American privacy close(er) to extinction than anything else. With a "war" on "terror" there are going to be casualties, my water consumption/music listening/laptop using/game playing/phone usage habits shouldn't be at the top of the list.
Why does the scapegoat have to be the common citizen?
Just yesterday, the UK Home Secretary was in the news saying that "we may have to modify some of our freedoms in the short-term" to protect us from evil terrorists. Given the degree of preparedness demonstrated by various services today, it seems pretty obvious that he was aware of the current situation when he made those remarks -- thus it also seems clear that he was shape people's opinion in preperation for the events that are now unfolding in public today.
See: Terror 'may force freedom curbs'.
And, like with falsifying creationism, there is no way to be certain the plot was genuine -- at most, you can prove a given plot was staged up.
And, given the repeated circumstances in which plots that were "staged up" actually ended up in shredded bodies in London, Madrid, and elsewhere, you don't see people who have actually chosen their flights and are in possesion of actual explosives to be worth stopping?
In this case, I would rather believe the conspiracy theorists -- no sane intelligence agency would wait until the terrorists are about to board the planes.
As you've perhaps noticed, they were not walking up to or sitting down on airplanes at the time. They made the arrests before that stage, but only after they were comfortable with having as many of the people in the cell as possible accounted for. If they'd acted sooner, they may have lost more of the cell. There are thousands of variables at play here, and the number of people in intel and law enforcement that have to coordinate on such a thing (including the ones who have to be ready to capitalize on the international communications and other business that would have immediately erupted the moment this hit the news) is enormous.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Also, you forgot to mention that they raised the alert level to "Critical" only *after* the 21 terrorists were captured... Should'nt it have been raised before? In short, no. Why? Because it means absolutely nothing. Security at airports, seaports and sensitive buildings remains in alert mode all the time (or at least its supposed to). It makes little sense to have heightened security only after we know something was going to happen. Like you said, the alert levels are more of a publicity-political thing than a real preventive measure.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
Honestly what is the goal behind terrorism? Has it done anything for their cause besides rain more crap down on the people they claim they are fighting for?
Cynicism in the US is reaching an all-time high. Half the population blames the government or accuses it of conspiracy no matter what the government does. We need more effective ways of countering the enemy's FUD. We have multiple CSPAN channels broadcasting government live and embedded reporters and still most of the citizenry would rather read and believe tabloids, kooks and extremist blogs. Guess what, you are the government. You are the military. Look at the history of the world and realize that there ARE people who will kill you because they don't like your GOD or covet what you have or have been taught since childhood to hate you out of existence.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
dude, it's a laptop, not a spleen. yeah it's retarded and we shouldn't have to, but being distracted by the real world for 6 hours isn't going to kill you. it can't, i mean you won't have anything on your person to do it with anyways.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
You're completely right - this is merely wimpy, pussy-like reactive defence.
We should be out there like real men, pro-actively fighting the terrorist threat... by educating people, improving their quality of life, allowing them self-determination and treating them fairly - that's how you stop terrorism, by taking away its recruits.
Oh, sorry, you meant we should be go stomping into countries which might or might not even support them and blow up or shoot a lot of brown people. I can see how that would stop all the other brown people who weren't terrorists before. And it'll certainly not prompt any of them to become terrorists. Good plan!
Thoughts for the day:
Terrorism's only raw material is recruits.
You can kick over snowmen all day long - they'll keep popping because anyone can make them. However, remove the supply of snow and there will be no more snowmen.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
I realize you are a troll because no one could possibly be THAT ignorant, but we also have:
1) 1979 Iranian hostage affair
2) 1983 U.S Embassy bombing in Beruit
These were the beginnings of Middle East terrorist organizations specifically targetting the U.S. You can try to blame it on the U.S meddling in Mid-east affairs, but that is a cover-up for the real reason. The fact is, Islam has not progressed beyond the time of the Crusades and anyone who does not follow Islam must be converted or killed. Yes, there was a time that Christianity followed a similar precept, but they finally moved on. Unfortunately, there is no way to win against this type of belief except by killing them all.
I hate to break it to you Bush-haters, but the only thing Kerry could have done to change things is establish Islam as the new national religion of the U.S. You people need to get your heads out of the political trash heap and realize that none of this is about what we've done -- it's about who we are. These people don't care about your political leanings except as a tool to build sympathy for the devil. They would just as soon see you lying dead next to W.
THAT is the reality we face.
Actually, you're the one that's nauseating.
If someone is killed by a terrorist it is bad, but if an innocent person is killed by the police, it is a lot worse. A society where innocent people are terrified of terrorism has a minor problem. A society where innocent people live in fear of the police has a major problem. Hint: it's because the police is the major social institution with legal backing for use of force, and the terrorists aren't. It's a lot easier to convict a terrorist for killing someone than it is sometimes to even get a fucking apology from the police.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
actually they havent said that "it's nothing to worry about" instead they've said they don't know if they have actually gotten everyone involved in the plot... thus the alert level.
course if they didn't raise the alert level and a plain blew up i'm sure people would be yelling just as loud that they didn't do enough to prevent it... just can't make people happy either way.
"If less is more, then eventually nothing will be everything."
We're at war with the Soviets^D^DTerrorists...
And we just has a glorious victory !
next up the 20 minutes of hate?
then back to work, business as usual..
We don't even need a war, just the illusion of one, thank you minitrue for real and complete reports of whats going on, and thank you miniplenty for lowering the oil prices to a historic low of 20$ pr gallon...
the current war on terror is quite like the war in 1984. Where the main purpose of the war was not to capture territories or resources, but rather to reduce the freedoms of the populaces. after the liberation of iraq, iraqies gained some and lost some, but people of the eu and us lost freedom. This victory will no doubt show that our forces are good and fine and great, and with more funding they'd be even better. now they have tightened airport security, most notably by requiring all carryons to be carried in clear plastic bags.
They're no doubt already discussing how to make security even better, as we speak. I'm not saying terrorism isn't real, but it's certainly been boosted since we started taking it seriously. I'm not saying the government is trying to take away your freedoms, but I do think they're forgetting what it is the silverware of civilisation that they're remoulding to shoot werewolves (monsters none of us really know much about). The governments are more worried about the deaths of a max. 5000 citizens the last five years, than meeting the big challenges we're facing (reducing bureaucracy, informing the intolerant, helping developing countries, improving pluralistic democracy, increasing education levels, getting humans to think)
So what if they kill a few of us, including some leaders, democracy is strong because it is NOT dependant on one person, but when too few cares, it becomes a defacto oligarchy.Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Spoken like a true American. We tend to forget pretty quickly. Umm... remember this from October? Probably not. In fact, I couldn't remember any of the specific plots we foiled, other than Richard Reid (if we can even count the Brits acting on US intel as a win for us).
I think its more a cultural difference, though. American journalists like panic! blood! chaos! I bet you might remember the UNC student who ran down some of his fellow students, or the Muslim fellow in Seattle that shot 6 people (including a pregnant woman) attending synagogue, or the other guy that shot up El Al... Notice that we are enemy #2 (sandwiched between Israel and the UK), but of these, we've had the fewest terrorist acts in our country since 9/11. That means we are stopping attacks. The reason we only hear about failures and not successes is that our media doesn't report when our side wins, they only report catastrophes (I recommend Michael Crichton's State of Fear -- it's well researched and covers this and quite a few other topics).
Trying to use logic and reason to predict the actions of someone who is willing to blow himself up in a plane full of people is a dangerous game.
And what is the "political agenda" you are going to claim they are advancing?
Oh, I dunno, how about all the curtailments of civil liberties they've been pushing since 9/11 in the name of preventing terrorism - things like the ID cards and database (which are pretty much universally agreed to be totally useless against terrorism), biometrics, etc.
Are you so cynical that you don't think they might have an 'alert system' just to alert the public?
If the alert system was actually there to alert the public, it would've gone up _before_ the arrests were made and gone down again a bit after the arrests were made (you know, when the threat has been reduced by arresting a bunch of evil terrorists). As it was, they only bothered to 'alert the public' after the matter, and at that point they put it up to it's highest level even though they said they had no evidence to suggest there would be any further attacks.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
News are saying that 21 people have been arrested, and 9/11 death toll was 2976 people (according to wikipedia, other sites I saw gave similar numbers). To attain this number, each of the 21 attackers would have to kill 2976/21 = 141 people per plane, which seems reasonable. That, of course, is assuming only 1 attacker per plane... Wouldn't it be more probable that there were at least 2 attackers per plane? In that case, killing 283 people per plane seems too much... Which might indicate that not all the attackers are under custody.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
If there was a critical threat to the UK today, surely there was a critical threat for the last few days.
Maybe. But do you want to tip off the people you're about to arrest that they should really, really think about getting on that small boat they've got hidden on the coast right about now? If you're watching them and they vanish - then you whack up the alert level. As long as you know where they are, there's no need to warn them that you're in a van near to their house with all your cameras and listening gear.
So how come the PM flew out on holiday two days ago?
And how come he's still not back?
I think that the PM's plane will be subject to tighter security checks and a normal flight.
And the same logic applies - if he cancels his holiday because he knows there will be an anti-terror swoop, then you just tipped off the baddies quite well. The whole press corps would want to know what the emergency is going to be, and he won't be able to provide an answer. Which the press will assume means that there's a classified reason, which probably means an imminent terror attack. About which the PM can do absolutely nothing, as he's not involved in the operational aspect.
And I don't see a reason why he should be back already. This only happened in the last few hours, after all. Does he need to return at all? The country is being run by his deputy; the guy ought to be able to run the country (even in a time of a minor emergency) in the absense of Mr Blair.. if he can't, then he's got not business being deputy PM.
Last time, of course, he was "caught" playing golf, and there was a screaming session. But IIRC, there wasn't anything he could have actually done in that case, other than.. not be playing golf. The whole thing was silly.. what was he meant to do? Sit at home, wringing his hands?
In this case, it's in the hands of the relevant authorities. A clear picture won't emerge for quite a few hours yet. Even if the PM was here, all he could say was that he doesn't know much about the operational details yet, and as soon as he's fully briefed, the press will be too.
There isn't a great deal any politician can do right now.
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
Here's the thought. Are we sure there were only 21 people involved? I mean dang sure? Because if there were 22 and that one guy happens to have a bottle of whatever and sees all his buddies go down, there's a good chance he'd try to get on a plane and go for it, especially if they got everyone else and he figures he's next. Kinda the "go down swinging" approach. They're not trying to foil the large scale attack anymore, they did that (at least they think they did, and I really hope that's true), they're trying to lock down the loose canon who may or may not exist. That's why there's a large blanket security upgrade, and why you can't get a bottle on any flight anywhere, even though the threats were against certain airlines going certain places.
Jester
Warning: This sig may be legally binding in England.
no terrorist **in his right mind** would try to put his "sub-plot" into action
I have emphasized the part that may have caused your misunderstanding.
It gets worse. Those Slashdotters who have female friends or who are women themselves think about this.
Ever wonder why women take handbags to the bathroom every time?
It's so we won't know if she is on her period. never mind what type/brand sanitary products she uses or when it is being changed etc... Women are more secretive about this stuff than guys are about jerking off. A lot more secretive.
I can just picture the kind of hell that will break louse when they start suggesting "You have to put your Tampax in a clear plastic bag".
Remember that old saying "Hell hath no fury..." ?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Insightful? Jesus.
How about an attack every five days if we lets those cocks have free reign?
That sentence does not look right, let's fix it.
How about an attack every five days if we lets our citizens have civil liberties?
If we as a country valued safety above all else in the 1700s, we would never have broken away from England. We would have BEGGED the British to quarter troops in our homes and tax the daylights out of us just as long as the promised to keep us safe from Indian raids.
Finkployd
If desiring to kill oneself and take out innocent people to make a political point about US presence in the middle east is not insane, I don't know what is.
It is easy to call someone insane if you get to make up the proof yourself. But even then, your proof of "insanity" sure is close to western ideals. Consider all the honor reserved for "fallen heroes" who "gave their lives defending their country." It's the same damn thing, just with an ameliorative spin instead of pejorative.
They have sane goals, but their methods are not. Their methods are cowardly and counterproductive.
Sure. Seems to me their methods work exceptionally well. The response to 9/11 has been to cause self-inflicted economic wounds in the trillions of dollars. The US military doesn't call terrorism "asymmetric warfare" for nothing, its a war and so far we are losing big time. Calling the enemy insane just plays into their hands.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Raising the alert level makes good tactical sense. Perhaps you have not thought it out fully.
Let's look at it from the aggressor point of view. They have a plan. This plan includes things like social engineering materials into position, explosives, detonation systems, and other details which have been painstakingly worked out. They have stockpiles of equipment which can be used in an attack. They are merrily moving along toward H-Hour.
Then, along comes Scotland Yard. In one fell swoop, they arrest some percent - let us say, for the sake of argument, 80% - of the people with enough knowledge of the plan and the materials to make the attack happen. They also capture 80% of the materials storage sites.
What is the next thing Scotland Yard will do?
They will perform forensic analysis on the materials and on any computers or plans left lying about. They will reconstruct the plan and the tools to be used in enough detail that detailed information and alerts can be formulated and handed out to sister agencies and airlines. They will gather the information required to track down the remaining 20% of the aggressor forces and materials. They will, in effect, provide the information required to precisely and correctly (if such a thing is possible) set the alert level.
This will take time. The forensic analysts on the computers may need to break encryption. The forensic analysts for the explosives won't be cutting any corners to save time, for the obvious reasons. From the aggressors point of view, there is a narrow window of opportunity - let us say, 24-48 hours - in which it is unlikely law enforcement will know enough details to be there waiting for you.
If you were the aggressor, what would you do in this case? Sit and wait for Scotland Yard to connect your name to the plot and come arrest you, or try to mount what small corner of the attack you can given the remaining available resources?
If you were the defender, what would you expect the aggressor to do? To sit and wait to be arrested? To panic (or not) and try to run? Or to attempt a very probably suicidal attack? Bear in mind that the aggressor profile matters - the IRA is not known for suicide missions, but Islamic terrorism is.
In short, the arrests are a stroke. The appropriate next step for the defender is to expect a counterstroke. Unfortunately, the counterstroke is both most likely and most dangerous right away, when the defender has the least information with which to fine-tune their defensive measures (read, "alert level"). Therefore the appropriate reaction is to raise your defenses, erring on the side of caution even if it means seeming to over-raise the alert level. Even if it gets you criticised by the crucial Slashdot block 8).
Note also the bit about having to drink any baby milk - previously held to be only an urban legend
Of course, terrorists don't drink unhealthy substances in the last hours before a suicide attack.
Trust me, I work for the government.
In a few months, if we are lucky, we will know the truth.
If there is actually a fair and public trial, that is. Many people don't realize that the government's interest in detention without trial (or secret trials) for terrorists may have more to do with a desire to manipulate public opinion and cover its own incompetence than with real security concerns.
In an environment where proof isn't necessary and questions are never asked, you can expect a lot of spectacular plots to be uncovered, especially in election years. I'll believe this stuff when it's proven in a court of law.
You know, I wish it were true, that I didn't have to connect anywhere. This is how they getcha into buying a higher-priced ticket.
Also, my time measurement was for door to door, and with normal delays. An actual direct flight is only like an hour and a half. But, when you consider these factors:
Besides, I get to see the countryside, do some wardriving, and discuss many things with my SO. No security theatre, plenty of cargo area, far cheaper. Cruising through the amber waves of grain, and purple mountain's majesty -- *that* is part of the American Dream that I was taught, not this Orwellian nonsense.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I'm running late, so I'll just put the lines on the page and leave space to read between them.
Joe got the boot from a grass roots movement.
The spin machine reminds people that democrats are left wing radicals that are weak on homeland security.
A convenient terror plot spoiled so soon after is suspicious.
That isn't to excuse the targeting of civilians by either side, but to say that pretending only one side is targeting civilians is beyond ignorant.
Yes it would be, fortunately that is not remotely what I was doing.
Let me spell it out, the terrorists are specifically targeting innocent civilians as a strategy of war. The WTC is not a military barracks or rocket launch site that happens to have businesses in it. The airplanes were not military transports which happened to have civilians on them, nor are the any of the sites the sectarian groups are targeting in Iraq of military significance. Now you may (some do) believe that the US and Israel are specifically targeting civilians and civilian buildings for no reason other than to kill civilians, but it seems pretty clear that when that happens it is either (a) an accident or (b) in most cases, the terrorists using human shields to protect rocket launch sites and such. The two hated militaries have nothing to gain by taking out civilians, but they do have interest in hitting rocket launch sites and military relates supply lines and such. Should they cease as soon as the terrorists move their sites to civilian areas or move civilians in? Imagine if WWII were fought that way.
Look, civilian death is the worst thing that happens in war, and should be avoided. However it does happen and it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that there is no difference between specifically targeting civilians and hitting civilians while targeting military targets.
Finkployd
Most of the 9/11 terrorists were actually from relatively wealthy Saudi Arabian families.
A percentage of the Palestinian suicide bombers do actually fall into the "nothing to lose" category where the prospect of their families being rewarded for their deaths is actually part of their motivation but that does not apply to the majority of the terrorists.
You're still trying to think about this from the point of view of a westerner when you assume that you would only do something suicidal if you had nothing to lose.
Mmmm.. Donuts