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?
No liquids or gels can be brought on board.
Reduce the "clutter" in your luggage so the inspectors have a clear view.
Medicine is ok and baby formula but be prepared to show it to the inspector.
Call carrier to see how early you have to arrive.
Have fun flying?!.
I wonder if the mousse in my hair will get me a trip to gitmo...
Not if your airplane breaks the time barrier and lands in 1986.
WHY do these terrorists specifically hate those of us who are scared of flying??
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Current information coming over the Beeb is that the plot may have included up to 9 planes simultaneously or in successive waves.
Explosives are suspected to have been carried on in hand luggage as liquids, suggesting that they were planning to use binary agents (where two non-explosive chemicals are mixed to form a 3rd reactive substance).
Currently travelers from the UK are being told that (IIRC) they may board the planes with absolutely no more than 7 carryon items, limited to a select list such as:
- 1 book
- 1 newspaper
- wallet
- passport
etc.
-Styopa
To be fair the target aircraft (apparently up to 10 flights were being targeted for timed explosions) where all bound for the US.
Now we have a situation where the only hand luggage allowed is medicines, wallets, baby food (must be eaten/tasted by parent in front of security staff), sanitary products (unboxed), etc. Shoes must be removed and X-rayed.
Anything electronic must go in the hold (laptops, cameras, gameboys, etc)
No liquids are allowed on US bound flights, due to tip off that liquid explosives would have been involved.
Full info on restrictions
Makes you wonder where they'll be trying to hide explosives next. Full body cavity search for all passengers? It's only a matter of time...
We've known about a likely plot to blow up several planes.
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.
Security at airports is not 'tightened' it's fucking impossible. Anyone travelling from the UK to the USA will find that it's quicker to walk.
Ed Almos
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
If you really remember, you will recall certain facts you left out, such as the man was fleeing from police. He created the dangerous situation. If you do such things, especially in a security-critical transportation environment, don't be surprised if you get shot.
No, He wasn't fleeing from the police.
You should really try and get your facts right before you accuse other people.
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?
>One thing that's almost certain is that no official will release any detail on that plot
I have been watching BBC news for the last 30 minutes (I live in the UK). Considerable detail has already been released and it's still the first day of the operation.
We have been told:
* Liquid explosives were planned to be hidden in soft drinks bottles (hence the ban on liquids).
* The explosives would be detonated over the atlantic (to ensure maximum fatalities).
* The attack would come in waves. As things start to clam down after the first wave, another wave was to be launched.
* The deah toll would be greather than 9/11.
According to US spokespeople:
* The investigation has been "critical" for about 2 weeks.
Compared to the vague information you hear from US alerts, this seems *much* more credible.
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.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
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'.
Why are planes and airports apparently such an appealing target for terrorism? If I really wanted to do some damage to civilians i'd go to a sold out college football game (very little security) and blow a chunk out of the stadium. If I wanted to do some damage to the government then I'd find some fairly small military building to blow up. And lastly, if I wanted to do something that would get a ton of media attention, i'd blow up a water tower or some sort of public monument.
The only reason I could think that planes are so attractive is that you only have to overtake several people and once you are in the cockpit, you are free to do whatever you want without revolt. Unless you have specific plans to use the plane (not just blow it up while its in flight) or hold the passengers hostage, it doesn't seem like a very great capture. I suppose one other advantage is that the terrorist doesn't have to worry about being stabbed to death with nail clippers that bystanders had on them since you can be sure the airport security took those all away.
Jean Charles de Menezes
friends of mine are flying home from UK to Australia soon. With two small kids. And under the restrictions, no kids toys. 18 hours with two kids and nothing to keep the occupied.
I suspect the rest of the plane would prefer a terrorist attack.
I arrived at Heathrow for an early flight to Frankfurt just as news was breaking for this at about 06:00. It was a tough decision to part with my laptop, PDA and mobile but I decided to take my chances. It only really then dawned on me the extent to which I depend on these items when I was waiting for hours to clear security... While I could have found a public payphone, all my phone numbers are stored in my mobile & PDA and I actually remember very few of them. I could speak to people, after somehow getting their numbers, but they could not call me back. All the usual channels that are normally avalable to me to get information about a delay were unavailable to me - no web access or even SMS messages to friends with access. You just have to stand in a queue like a sheep.
:)
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.
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.
At the risk of being accused of covert racism, it's perhaps worth pointing out just how much of the UK government is controlled by Scots, from the Prime Minister down. The Scots have something of a reputation for violence and aggression, and if you want to point out that the Rt Hon Anthony Blair, MA, Barrister-at-Law is an upper class Scottish lawyer, it was just such an upper class Scottish lawyer that organised the Glencoe massacre, for his own advantage.
Actually, I think our police and security services on the whole do a pretty good job, especially outside London (where there is a lot of institutional corruption.) But they deserve better politicians.
Pining for the fjords
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.
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.
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.
If you're blowing yourself up anyway, you don't give a damn about long-term poisonous effects.
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.
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.
I think the problem there is that we have been at level 'severe' for some time. The danger is believed to have gone up, and they need to show this.
Perhaps there aren't enough steps in the scale.
We need 'like, really severe', and 'almost critical -no really!' as well.
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 ?
From http://www.dft.gov.uk/ - airline security statement.
Also note it's only "sufficient and essential for the flight".
What you do for the several hours people are waiting to get on the flight is anybodys guess.
Note also the bit about having to drink any baby milk - previously held to be only an urban legend http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/milk.htm. Fiction becomes reality.
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. The part about the promised virgins in the afterlife does not help either.
They have sane goals, but their methods are not. Their methods are cowardly and counterproductive.
Finkployd
Have you heard of Ramzi Yousef and the Bojinka plot which is the same plan was being implemented and hopefully stopped today.
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.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
What we need is a scale that goes all the way up to eleven. You see previously they'd be at level 10 and thinking they need a little bit more but with no where to go ...
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
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).
The police shot one guy by accident...
In the head. Nine times. Accident, eh?
How about I chase you around, trying to shoot you in the head "by accident", and then we'll see how well you accept my humble apologies...
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.
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.
I admit the concept is similar, but western heroes are generally considered to be those who gave their lives fighting against an enemy who wanted to kill them (us). No matter how you stretch it, women and children on a plane are no threat whatsoever to the Islamic nations or their people. So perhaps insane is not the right label, but certainly their is a demonstration here of utter disregard for any life (including their own) to achieve their means. We are certainly not celebrating the disgraced soldiers who murdered and raped Iraq women, while it seems in Islam they would be revered as heroes for the cause.
Furthermore, there is an effort to downplay any religious "jihad" reasoning that may be behind these attacks and portray them as intelligent and subtle masterminds of global policy. That argument flies in the face of the sectarian violence occurring in Iraq right now, where they are killing each other randomly not for worshiping the wrong god, but for belonging to the wrong subtle subgroup within Islam. It is not hard for Joe Six-pack to just assume "them islams" are just attacking us for religious reasons as well.
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.
I would make the argument that it is hurting the regular people of the middle east more, the ones the terrorists are supposedly fighting for. Since you have obviously thought about this, what do you feel the end goal of the terrorists are? Realistically, not "eradication of America" because that is simply not going to happen with a couple of AK47s and IEDs. I have a few theories, but they lend themselves to the "insane" theory which probably does stem from my western bias. I can imagine them wanting to draw the US into full scale nuclear war where they all die in a glorious stand against the west. Or wear us down to where we say "fuck it" and leave Israel and Iraq to their own devices, but the best way to do that would be to stop the terror attacks against civilians completely and let people ask why they hell we are still fighting when they have stopped. Actions like this most recent one just play right into Bush's hands (and approval rating) by reminding people we are fighting an enemy that wants you dead for no reason other than to make a statement.
Finkployd
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.
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.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
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
Nobody's asking you to drink a big foamy glass of piss here.
;-)
Please don't change the subject. We're talking breast milk, not American beer.
'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
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