Liquid Terror Charges Dropped

A Pakistani judge has decided to drop terrorism charges against the man described as a "key figure" in the alleged plan to blow up flights out of London using liquid explosives. Instead of facing charges of terrorism for the plot, which forced many travelers to follow strict guidelines with respect to liquids, Rashid Raud now faces charges such as forgery. From the article: "Several commentators said the threat was deliberately exaggerated to bolster the anti-terror credentials of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and that it helped to demonise British Muslims of Pakistani origin. The Crown Prosecution Service in the UK said the dropping of charges against Mr Rauf in Pakistan would "make no difference" to the case against the men charged in Britain."

Comments

Awesome

[BitterAndDrunk]

I'd assume this means we're not going to have to take off our shoes or check our liquids anymore? Oh wait, I keep on assuming the TSA isn't a government agency run by the retarded and/or blind.

Re:Awesome

[clark0r]

You would have thought that after the whole threat was rubbished by just about anybody with any basic knowledge of classroom chemistry, the home office and BAA would have downgraded the threat. I must say though, I flew from Gatwick 1 week after the plot was 'uncovered' and it didn't really affect me in the slightest. The queues were orderly and moved at quite a good pace, but the security staff didn't have a clue what they were doing. One woman performing searches on people let several people through with cigarette lighters and cigarettes, both clearly not allowed through the checkpoints. Shambles.

Re:Awesome

[EvilSS]

They probably had strike anywhere matches in mind when they did that. Of course, those are almost impossible to find anymore. I really miss them too. Literally fun on a stick.

Re:Awesome

[Sabaki]

The shoes were an entirely separate incident.

Re:Awesome

[glesga_kiss]

You would have thought that after the whole threat was rubbished by just about anybody with any basic knowledge of classroom chemistry, the home office and BAA would have downgraded the threat.

I thought it was now common knowledge that the whole thing was a sham. It was to get another embarrassing item off the news at the time; our ongoing support for the bombardment of Lebanon when every other country in the world was crying out for a ceasefire. It was getting pretty embarrassing for them just as this story "broke".

UK intelligence agencies have said (off-the-record of course) that they wanted to continue observing the group and taking notes, getting contacts and so on. There was never any danger; not only did they not have any chemicals or plane tickets, most of those involved did not even have passports!! It was amateur hour and I believe that the intelligence agencies were waiting to see if they actually knew anyone relevant that they could further investigate.

It was said at the time that the push to make arrests came from the US intelligence service and that this was in spite of vocal opposition from those watching "the group". Now, from what I understand, the only reference to actually attacking planes comes from the torture of someone in Pakistan. The person in question had fled the UK on suspision of murder charges. So, what do you get when you combine an untrustworthy person with torture? Fairytales.

Further reading:

A chemists view

Opinion on those involved

More on the chemical side

This was a non-story and I am amazed that the sham has held so long. I'd make a point of arguing the banality of it when passing through an airport, but it's just not worth the cavity search. I guess I should just be a nice, compliant citizen and be afraid and keep my mouth shut.

Re:Awesome

[BitterAndDrunk]

I know this, I just find it as inane as the liquids. One unsuccessful shoe bomb = everyone takes their shoes off forever.

It's almost laughable.

Thank god there's never been an ass bomber, think what we'd have to go through!

Ok technically my brother is an ass bomber but he's never flown. He leaks a green miasma though.

Re:Awesome

[nomadic]

I find it funny that the FAA doesn't allow matches to be in luggage checked into the plane. I can understand a lighter might leak and therefore expose something very flammable in the undercarriage. But matches? How could they accidentally light themselves?

It was through pressure brought by the Grue lobby.

Re:Awesome

[jandrese]

I dropped a brand new box of those strike anywhere matches on the floor once when I was a kid. It was still pretty tightly sealed so after the heads burned the wood didn't go anywhere, but it was still pretty scary.

Re:Awesome

[cpuh0g]

A "bra" bomber would have made flying a bit more interesting.

Re:Awesome

[jazman_777]

Sorry folks, Stalag 17 is a terrorist movie, because it shows you how to make a time bomb. Still works, too.

Re:Awesome

[metlin]

Oh trust me, you really don't want to see some of those women topless.

*shudders*

Great.

[Tackhead]

Now that that's cleared up, can I finally bring my oh-so-dangerous fifth of vodka in the same carry-on I use to hold my laptop so I can drink myself back into unconsciousness when the oh-so-harmless lithium batteries run out?

Re:Great.

[TheJorge]

Or, go to your liquor store and buy a case (or two) of those little airline-sized bottles. Throw them all in a big plastic bag. At least for domestic US flights, you're all set.

I recently did this with an absurd quantity of alcohol on a bachelor party trip with some friends. Of course, we got a good-spirited security guy who laughed at us (and obviously thought about the same thing I do of these regulations) and waved us through. Despite the willingness to anal probe you before you board a flight, these men and women are definetly the bottom rung of a government agency and likely hate these new rules more than you do.

Re:Great.

[StikyPad]

1) Put 20-50 airplane bottles of various liquors into an opaque bag.
2) Remove 5 bottles at random.
3) Pour into glass.
4) Drink.

Now THAT'S liquid terror!

This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Numerous experts have said there's no practical or safe way to make a bomb from separate liquids onboard an airplane. Google for it, you'll be amazed how vaccuus the allegation from London police is.

Which leaves us with only one reason why the UK government would make such a noise around this fantasy: to raise the terror feeling in the general population in order to pass more restrictive laws and embed the police state a little deeper.

I keep wondering why nobody stands up to these clowns. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad...

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep wondering why nobody stands up to these clowns. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad... Yeah, noone has ever used a contact lens fluid container with a liquid explosive and a casio watch to set off a bomb on an airplane. Nor did they assemble it in the airplane lavatory. That is just crazy talk. It is clearly impossible.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[truthsearch]

the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes.

Soda (bigger than 3 oz.) can be brought on if purchased in the gate. Baby bottles of any size are also allowed. There are other exceptions, such as any medicines with a prescription.

People accept it because there's little they can do. It's either obey or not get on the plane. The only way to potentially change the rules (that I can think of) is to have a huge letter writing or signed petition campaign go to members of congress. Things will have to get much worse before anyone could energize a large enough public campaign.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[DBett]

Don't confuse people with facts. Let them continue to assume the only risk is from the government(s). That makes them feel better - since at some level they know that the government isn't really 1984 come to life.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[Dutch Gun]

I'm sorry you feel inconvenienced with some additional rules regarding liquids when flying. But 1984? Did you and I see the same movie? Ah, I see... "it's just the first step", right?

Here's my explanation for the ban on liquids: the government is just covering it's arse. These guys (the ones making the decisions) are politicians and beauracrats, not scientists or engineers. Yes, it may be stupid and overreactionary. But I don't subscribe some sinister motive to these actions either. In my estimation, this type of rule is meant to make people feel safer, not the opposite ("well, I can't bring liquids on the plane but neither can the terrorists"). And, the government's typical reaction is to, at the very least, "do something", even when there's very little that can practically be done.

It's rather odd to see such outrage over some minor inconveniences, especially after so many honest-to-God actual attacks have occured (I don't call potential terrorist attacks a 'fantasy'). But I've found that some people seem to take great delight in being perpetually outraged, so perhaps I shouldn't discourage their fun.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Last week I was on a short business flight within Canada.

When I went through security I had to give up my ***potentially explosive*** 1L plastic bottle of Pepsi, and be hassled about wearing steel toed shoes (regulation work issued footwear).

After clearing security and getting into the holding pen..err...Lounge area, I went to a vending machine and purchased a GLASS bottle of orange juice.

Now, I'm not the stereotypical terrorist type, but yeah, I could kill a pilot or a couple stews with a broken bottle. It makes me so appreciative of the safety provided by those airline security fees I paid for, knowing they are being circumvented by the Coca-Cola delivery guy ;).

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[bmajik]

Unless there has been an imposter or misattribution, at least one highly respected "expert" but from a non-traditional background has said that it was definitely possible:

http://www.pournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/m ail428.html#Carmack

The expert? John Carmack.
His qualifications? Mixing easily available chemicals into rocket propellants.

Diclosure of Bias:
I happen to respect both Jerry Pournelle and John Carmack. And I happen to think the register is a lousy "publication".

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[glesga_kiss]

Numerous experts are dead wrong. It can be, and has been done. Google Flight 434.

I call bullshit. He didn't mix the chemicals onboard, all he did was take some wires hidden in his shoe, hook them up to his watch and some explosive he brought with him. Hardly a case of "inert liquids being a threat when mixed together" as is implied by this case.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[guruevi]

a totalitarian state that disappears its own citizens into brutal torture chambers at the merest suspicion of dissident thoughts ==> Check (Gitmo, American & Brittish concentration camps)
apparently launches missiles at its own cities to keep its citizens in check ==> Check (9/11, Cold War)
and is trying to brainwash its entire population into being literally incapable of understanding the very concept of freedom ==> Check (your very comment)

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[CodeBuster]

The practicality of the creation of such a device is irrelevant to the charges at hand. The demonstration of means, even though such means may prove to be flawed, motive and opportunity to commit a terrorist act combined with the creation of martyrdom videos and possession of other terrorism manuals and associated materials is enough by itself to merit charges and, judging from the evidence collected thus far, conviction of conspiracy to commit mass murder.

It is right for us, the civilized members of society, to send a message that this sort of behavior will NOT be tolerated after 9/11 and 7/7. It should be made clear to these terrorists that we will lock them up in supermax for the remainder of their natural lives or hang them for treason when we catch them. The terrorists are the common enemies of all humanity and they should be treated as such.

This does not mean that we give up our freedoms, but rather that we deal with terrorists harshly when we catch them. It is legally no different than the special distinction that is made between ordinary crimes and hate crimes where the penalties are increased due to the ulterior motivations and heinous nature of the offenses.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[TheRaven64]

In the article you linked to, one person died as a result of the bomb. One. You could quite easily kill one person on a plane without a bomb, although injuring 10 others might be a bit more effort. The only advantage this had was that the bomber was not on the plane when it went off, although not dying doesn't seem to be much of an issue for most terrorists these days. The plot in question, however, was not about taking a liquid explosive on the plane. It was about taking a bunch of different chemicals which would not show up as explosives and mixing them together. The compound that the government claim was going to be made:

1. Requires longer than a transatlantic flight to make, and
2. Will explode if shaken (e.g. by turbulence) at several stages, although the explosion will only be big enough to kill the person mixing it.

Even discounting the fact that most flight attendants would probably be suspicious of someone spending eight hours in the toilet, it doesn't seem entirely feasible.

Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke

[Das Modell]

Why do people deny reality to prop up their own fantasies? Terrorist strikes are an undeniable fact of life. They occur all the time, and plots and potential plots are discovered constantly.

Remember: Be affraid!

[Scrameustache]

It's not physically possible to do the "mix household liquids" terrorist plot in a plane. It takes hours, releases a lot of fumes, and requires control over the temperature. The officials know this.

The "safety" measures were a show.
They had nothing to do with keeping people safe, and everything to do with keeping people affraid.

Re:Remember: Be affraid!

[glesga_kiss]

In any case, if boxcutters can crash 4 planes simultaneously i'm sure you don't need something as complicated as a binary liquid explosive.

If anything like that ever happens again, it won't be for a very long time. People know what happened on 9/11. You are not going to do so well with a melee weapon against a whole airliner worth of people who know they are fighting for their lives.

How's that saying go again?

[GungaDan]

"Not all liquids are terrrorists, but all terrorists are liquids?" At least somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of them, anyway.

Re:How's that saying go again?

[Intron]

I can't carry any liquid onto a plane? That pisses me off!

"Safe"

[DBett]

Numerous experts have said there's no practical or safe way to make a bomb from separate liquids onboard an airplane.

Not sure if 'safety' would be a top priority.

Re:"Safe"

[Volante3192]

It has to be safe up to the point of detonation otherwise if it kills you off from, say, fumes, or is too unstable to even carry on the plane if you could sneak it on before you can blast a hole in the fuselage, what's the point in trying?

Re:"Safe"

[Jherek Carnelian]

Ummm... these are suicide bombers we're talking about. I wouldn't exactly use the word rational to describe these people.

When our guys die in uniform, they are heroes and patriots.
When their guys die they are crazy and irrational.

Re:"Safe"

[KORfan]

When our guys die in uniform, they are heroes and patriots. When their guys die they are crazy and irrational.
When our guys die, they're wearing uniforms and following (usually, and hopefully) an international code of agreed-upon behavior concerning how soldiers act.
When their guys die, they're dressed as civilians, targeting civilians.

If their guys are attacking an occupying force, they aren't terrorists.

Re:"Safe"

[cold fjord]

When our guys die in uniform, they are heroes and patriots.
When their guys die they are crazy and irrational.

I would say that is pretty much correct, but you left out some things....

When our guys win, we cheer.
When their guys win, they cheer.

When our guys abuse prisoners, we boo and they go to jail.
When their guys cut off heads, or use electric drills to torture prisoners before execution, they cheer, brag, and put a video on the internet.

If our guys keep winning, we get to live in liberal democracies.
If their guys win, you, or someone who will be related to you, will end up living in a Muslim super state, the Caliphate, that unifies church and state, living under a harsh form of Sharia. The Taliban's interpretation might be a taste of it, given that Al Qaeda hung out with them:

Life under Taliban cuts two ways Consider the following list of edicts issued by Taliban religious scholars in Kabul in December 1996:

"To prevent music.... In shops, hotels, vehicles, and rickshaws, cassettes and music are prohibited."

"To prevent beard shaving and its cutting. After one and a half months, if anyone [is] observed who has shaved and or cut his beard, they should be arrested and imprisoned until their beard is bushy."

"To prevent kite-flying."

"To prevent idolatry. In vehicles, shops, hotels, rooms, and any other place, pictures [and] portraits should be abolished."

"To prevent washing cloth by young ladies along the water streams in the city. Violator ladies should be picked up with respectful Islamic manner, taken to their houses, and their husbands severely punished."

The struggle over sharia Is sharia harsh?
Followed literally, it can be medieval. Sharia divides all human actions into five categories: obligatory, meritorious, permissible, reprehensible, and forbidden. Among the reprehensible and forbidden acts are drinking alcohol, eating pork, theft, slander, highway robbery, murder, adultery, and losing one's faith. Traditional punishments include whipping and the amputation of limbs. For the most severe crimes, the penalty can be decapitation, crucifixion, or death by stoning. In Saudi Arabia, where sharia governs civil society, these harsh penalties are still meted out. Women are shrouded and segregated from men; suggestive Western photographs censored; and criminals punished harshly. In the capital city of Riyadh, beheadings are carried out on a brick-and-marble plaza that some have dubbed "Chop-Chop Square."

And more about Sharia here and here.

Some of us are slaves to fashion.
They want to make us slaves to them, or at the very least, dhimmis.

Our guys and their guys have very different ideas about what to love.

Dealing in Death

Another chapter from early Islamic history -- serving as a lesson for today's Muslims at war against the West -- is the concept of the love of death. This originated at the Battle of Qadisiyya in the year 636, when the commander of the Muslim forces, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, sent an emissary with a message from Caliph Abu Bakr to the Persian commander, Khosru. The message stated: "You [Khosru and his people] should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life." This account is recited in today's Muslim sermon

Political Knee-Jerk

[twifosp]

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but to ignore the political knee-jerk reaction that occurred when these events happened is just ignorant. I seriously doubt the plot was engineered by political entities using fear in an attempt to sway public opinion. Having said that, I also have very little doubt this entire scenario was a knee-jerk reaction from political pressure to law enforcement agencies (both British and American) to find a real plot in the making, ANY plot no matter how far-fetched or improbable to acctually happen, and blow it way out of proportion. This allowed them convince the public that we are always on the verge of a major terrorist attack and we need to give the government more powers in order to protect us.

The fact that the courts are not finding enough evidence to convict only support this theory. Combine that with timing of the event, and the new scare policies implemented in Airports, along with the speeches made by certain political parties (i.e. better not vote for our opponents or next time this would have killed your newborn child, puppy dog, and a baby seal) and you have yourself what appears to be a bonified piece of engineered political propaganda.

Interesting, are the times we live; the methods used to influence public opinion, and therefore events and public control, are no different than they were 50-60 years ago when the world was in turmoil. We never really learn do we?

Inconclusive?

[ShorePiper82]

FTA:

As well as forgery charges, Mr Rauf has also been charged with carrying explosives. But his lawyer says police evidence amounts only to bottles of hydrogen peroxide found in his possession. Hydrogen peroxide is a disinfectant that can be used for bomb-making if other chemicals are added. the article also states that Rauf is flagged as a ringleader for this particular operation/mission.
There were other arrests made here, so let's review:

• Murder case in 2002
• • Primary suspect flees country to Pakistan

• Suspects carrying potential ingredients for creating explosives
• • Raul is one of many (one potential ingredient)
  • was not carrying a bomb per-se
  • Raul is however suspect in other outstanding cases

Raul was found not guilty on terrorist charges which (IANAL) are inconclusive as he was tried seperate from the `other ingredients` in this particular event. Would Raul have been able to assemble a bomb if he had the possessions of each of the other suspects (known suspects or not) on that particular flight? Pakistan should have allowed the suspect to be extradited to the UK for trial both for the 2002 murder case and in conjunction with the other suspects arrested in the plane threat to be taken in as a whole and not one part.

Read the FAQ (RTFF)

[Flying pig]

Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

Some people would say that the biggest problem the US faces is that so many of its citizens are so US-centric. It's hard to be the world's policeman and leading superpower when the people who vote aren't interested. When it was the United Kingdom that had the job, it had a large pool of (frequently multilingual) sailors to draw on, and an upper class that learned Latin, Greek and French as a core part of the curriculum to prepare them for languages like Arabic later on.

Nowadays all politics are global. Pakistan is in America's back yard, Britain is a puppet state. Stories like this on Slashdot just reflect reality, not how some anonymous coward from Outer Fencepost, Wyoming would like things to be.

Re:My Rights Online??!!

[TommydCat]

However it appears an increasing number of my rights have been going offline as of late...

Liquid Terror?

[TheWoozle]

Sounds like the batch of home-made beer my dad made when I was 10...

Spectacle vs Results

[why-is-it]

This was a non-story and I am amazed that the sham has held so long. I'd make a point of arguing the banality of it when passing through an airport, but it's just not worth the cavity search. I guess I should just be a nice, compliant citizen and be afraid and keep my mouth shut.

I agree with everything you said, but there is something I would like to add: what the authorities did wasn't even sound police work. It was a lame attempt for some good PR to justify the cost and inconvenience of all these policies designed to make us feel safe, even if they don't actually work.

Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group, gather more evidence and when there is a case, quietly arrest the suspects and let the justice system do it's job. Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the people in charge of the investigation were not subject to political interference at home, or abroad.

Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work. One gets you headlines, and the other gets you results. What a shame that massaging their own egos is priority #1.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[nido]

Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work.

But what if good police work turned up inconvenient facts? Such as, for example, there being no substantial threat from arab/muslim "terrorists", as the fabricated liquid bomb plot seems to substantiate? Or the likelihood of Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks?

Theater is essential to the War Of Terror, because without it the need for perpetual war evaporates.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[Jherek Carnelian]

Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work. One gets you headlines, and the other gets you results. What a shame that massaging their own egos is priority #1.

You presume that there are any results to get.

Given the really low rate of actual attacks over the last 10-20 years, it seems like there are probably less than 10 potential plots of any significance, maybe even less than 5, "out there."

Presumably the people in these government entities like receiving regular paychecks. So it would come as no surprise that if the threat was overblown they would take up the slack with their own exaggerations.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

I follow British-American news. Under normal circumstances, it's illegal for the British media to report on stings-in-progress. Left to themselves, most of the British police would've continued to infiltrate terrorist groups (real or otherwise), gather evidence, arrest suspects and so on, not letting the papers know until it was finished. They'd just let this be another of the umpteen plots the UK gov. claims to be working on but won't discuss.
There was one publicity-seeking cop. He leaked this to an American paper. Since this was obviously of interest to Americans (it was a London-to-NY flight), the American press ran the story. It was over a day between when the American press broke the story and when the British press admitted it.
Yes, someone was going after PR. But we don't know that this leak was the UK government's idea. I personally doubt it: the UK government proudly claims to have foiled hundreds of plots that they refuse to detail, inc. one that they say happened before 9/11. This could've been just one more, and it would've worked for them--just not for America.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[theLOUDroom]

Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group

Why bother when you're allowed to torture people?

Given enough time, you get these guys to say anything you want.
Why waste all that effort to find the guilty, when you can just pick someone and beat them until they admit their guilt or agree to testify to someone else's guilt?

So what if the actual terrorists blow up a few more things, it only confrims that you need even more power to persue them!

I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here, but when you look at the big picture, it sure looks really bad.

Re:Spectacle vs Results

[Incadenza]

Why bother when you're allowed to torture people? Given enough time, you get these guys to say anything you want. Why waste all that effort to find the guilty, when you can just pick someone and beat them until they admit their guilt or agree to testify to someone else's guilt?

There was an article in the science section of NRC Handelsblad a couple of weeks ago on interrogation techniques. The article was written because the whole torture discussion so far is about the morality of torture, not about the effectiveness.

What research done so far on interrogation techniques shows, is that the more pressure you put on people, the more they say the things they think the interrogator wants to hear. Which might or might not be the truth. So if you want that people to confirm the image you have in your mind, go ahead and put them under pressure, or even torture them when you are morally challenged. You will hear a lot, but most of it will be noise, not useful information. Hard interrogation techniques quite plainly cannot be used for truth finding.

On the other hand, if you want information, you have to make use of humans natural weakness: we all like to chat. If people feel comfortable, they start talking, and will sooner or later tell more than they planned to. Which is of course, I must admit, a difficult strategy to follow with suspects that do not speak your language, do not share your cultural values, and might have planted a bomb somewhere that could kill your friends any time.

The scary thing is that these so-called intelligence agencies have gathered tons and tons of noise over the past years, and that this noise will be used to base our domestic and foreign policies on. This won't be the last scaremonging incident that will have a lasting impact on our lives.

Re:My Rights Online??!!

[TommydCat]

Perhaps to travel with my documents secure (and not searched) and unfettered travel between states? There must be a reason this was spelled out by our forefathers...

Re:Video that shows something similar

[Big Bob the Finder]

The videos were from Brainiac, and if you look carefully in the slow motion of the first bathtub they blow up, you can see the wire that leads over the size to the charge they set off. I've worked with cesium and rubidium, and they're not too much stronger than potassium- not enough that such a small amount would blow it up, anyway. Simply put, they fudged it with a small charge to wow the audience. Some great science going on there.

As for the "new terrorist binary explosive" video, that's simply a small demo charge in the post used to support the melon. The shower of sparks pretty much gives it away. No tiny amount of chemical exposives can cause that much damage. Moreover, if it were that strong, the author whipped up a massive batch of the stuff (in relative terms)- an explosive sufficiently sensitive to shock initiation that mixing it the wrong way would have killed him, when he could have made a much smaller batch. It's just silliness. It also seems the sky is a bit darker after the "explosion," as if the melon were removed and a small pyro charge was set off and spliced in there. The quantity of explosives used is far too small, even for the most powerful of primary explosives.

Disclaimer: I am, in fact, an explosives chemist with extensive experience with primary, secondary, and blasting explosives, including terrorist "improvised" explosives and devices.

Re:My Rights Online??!!

[TheRaven64]

The IRA received most of their funding from the USA, and the 'Real IRA' probably still has weapons left over from that. The big benefit of the WTC attacks from a British perspective was that the USA suddenly decided that funding terrorists wasn't cool anymore.

Re:My Rights Online??!!

[rleibman]

The Right to privacy, as well as the right to carry liquids in containers above 1oz on an airplane are clearly stated in the constitution, right next to the right to walk on your hands (it's actually the right to *pursuit* walking on your hands) and the right to wear green pants on Easter Sunday:

U.S. Constitution, 9th Amendment. Quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment. Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Leading superpower? Not if we keep this up.

[CleverNickName]

Some people would say that the biggest problem the US faces is that so many of its citizens are so US-centric. It's hard to be the world's policeman and leading superpower when the people who vote aren't interested.

It's also hard to be a leading superpower when our leadership is so incompetent, the rest of the world doesn't respect us. Right now, the only reason anyone listens to us is because we have bigger guns and lots of consumers to buy crap, and that's embarrassing. I'd rather be respected than feared.

Re:Video that shows something similar

[toddestan]

The way they are commonly stored is in a jar immersed in an oil it won't react with. I'm sure that security would question anyone with such a jar, but as you say, it would not be hard to figure out a way to smuggle in some elemental cesium that wouldn't draw any attention.

Maybe I just watch too much porn but.....

[Chineseyes]

Liquid Terror would make an awesome title for a porn flick