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

[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

[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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.