Aircraft bombing plot stopped in UK....

[lowlifecat]

not sure if this is related

Lebanese Basketball Team Help Overpower Eritrean Man Aboard Qatari Plane

A man aboard a Qatari Airways flight fought with flight attendants Thursday, prompting the pilot to return to Amman, but the incident was not a hijacking attempt, a government spokesman said.
Initial reports from airport security officials and a Qatari Airlines spokesman said the man, identified as an Eritrean, tried to force his way into the cockpit carrying a canister that the officials said contained a liquid.

But Jordanian government spokesman Nasser Judeh told The Associated Press that it "was a quarrel and not a hijacking attempt" and that the liquid was medicine.

Players of the Lebanese national basketball team, who were on board, suspected the man had an unusual behavior and took a part in overpowering him, the head of the basketball delegation George Kelzi told the LBCI by phone from the Jordanian capital.

The man had tried to go to a bathroom 10 minutes after the flight took off from Amman for the Qatari capital, Doha, Judeh said.

When the attendants told the passenger he could not leave his seat yet, he pushed an attendant to the ground before others restrained him, Judeh said. The pilot returned the plane to Amman, where the man was detained.

Kelzi told the LBCI that basketball player Fadi al-Khatib sat near the Eritrean man to keep an eye on him until the plane's safe landing in Amman.
Airport security officials confirmed the story, saying the man started screaming that he wanted to speak to the pilot to complain about the flight attendants for stopping him.

The incident came hours after Britain announced it had foiled a major terrorist plot to blow up airplanes headed to the United States from London's Heathrow Airport. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the terrorists planned to use liquid explosives disguised as beverages and other common products and set them off with detonators disguised as electronic devices.(AP-Naharnet)

[lowlifecat]

and with that i have reached 500! now i'm half a stuper murcer

[The PIT]

Oops Bank England print the details of the suspects. Could damage prospects of future trails.

[VJ]

Oops Bank England print the details of the suspects. Could damage prospects of future trails.

Well, yes, but one has to consider which is worse: not finding them but be able to put them on trial, or find them (they could be traced if there were to be set free).

In all honesty, I find it odd that they are now making such a big deal of liquids. A friend of mine once had to prove he was carrying chocolate milk (in little cartons) by tasting them. Needless to say he couldn't close it again (so he threw them away). They then said it had been known that gasoline and so had been smuggled on board before using such cartons (and this is YEARS ago).
I find it sad that all these checks are necessary, but it is something we have to live with. I don't understand peoply giving security personell a hard time, they are doing their job (and in my opionion, a frustrating job: checking hundredthousands of people, and virtually all are - luckily - innocent).

I think Brian's point is that we all should be critical of our governments, but it came out wrong. Given the magnitude of the events (delays, worldwide repercussions, ...) it is very unlikely that this is staged.


Jörg

[Dr Mordrid]

I think Brian's point is that we all should be critical of our governments, but it came out wrong. Given the magnitude of the events (delays, worldwide repercussions, ...) it is very unlikely that this is staged.


Jörg

Understatement of the week! I saw that post and fumed because it sounded just like what we were hearing out of the "Michigan Militia" types back in the 90's

"Michigan Militia" is the group that spawned Terry Nichols, Tim McVeigh's partner in the Oaklahoma attack. His farm was only ~50 miles from here.

On reflection I'm sure Brian's intent was that we shouldn't trust conservative governments, but that's not much better to folks in a fundamentally Republican State

[TransformX]

I don't think there's a single, truly liberal government in the world.

[GNEP]

OK, I'll come in now - was tempted to immediately after Brian's post, but might well have been shot down in flames

I don't think I'm going out on too much of a limb by saying that I think that MI5/MI6/whatever have done a pretty good job over the last 30 years with regards to potential terrorist action. They might have made some mistakes, but the only ones you traditionally would hear about would be those like Omagh.

However what appears to have changed with the incumbant UK government is the apparent (to me) willingness to try and make political capital out of terrorist activity and those attempting to combat it. From the small things (like that time when during 9/11 a junior minister or aide or something sent an email saying "now would be a good time to release bad news"), to the big things like using their majority in the House of Commons together with the natural Tory desire to appear "patriotic" to push through severe limitations of our liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism.

More recently we have seen this backfire:

de Menenzez shooting - immediate comment coming from New Labour (and Ian Blair, one of Tony's cronies as I see it) being along the lines of "we've stopped a terrorist bombing the tube! Yeah for us!" later being rapidly brushed under the carpet as the facts become clear. Luckily we have a free press, and a state-funded opposition (the best thing about democracy IMHO - paying a load of people to potentially disagree with the people in power), so a lot of noise gets made about about the feck-up (which incidentally is possibly where the impression of the media being overtly liberal comes from - yes they are when the incumbant government is not - it's far more newsworthy when you are critical of those in power. If there was a liberal government in power, then you may well find a rather more right-wing press).

Forest Gate: woke up to hear New Labour politicians on the radio and TV essentially talking about how they had scored a massive victory in the Global Fight Against Terror. Then more information starts to emerge, and apparently 250 policement turned up for the camera crews (yes they were there for the breakfast TV programmes), they shot someone by mistake in all the confusion, alienated further an entire neighbourhood of the sort where people who like to bomb things are meant to come from, and grudgingly admit in the end that nothing related to terrorism was found at all. And the people arrested/shot were eventually released without any charges. But on the day of their release, entirely coincidentally (actually I think that really was accidental), one of them is declared to be a child pornographer (NB this particular of accusation flies in the face of innocent-until-proven-guilty as it generally ruins your life even if you are completely guilt-free).

Death of Dr Kelly and the Hutton Inquiry: erm that's a whole can of worms I don't really want to open here and now.

Starting to spot a pattern here? OK, there are times when it all works out OK, but to be honest I can't think of a biggie off the top of my head.

It's not that the security services are doing a bad job. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong. And if they are playing it safe (which you kind of have to in this game) then you expect a few mistakes. It's that consistently I have switched on the news and seen Blunkett/Reid/Home Secretary talking with great gravitas about some breaking story that is developing around them, with the kind of look on their face that says, "we'll definitely get re-elected now we've shown how masterful we are," whilst to be honest it's still way too early for any of them to know wtf is really going on.

It's NOT A POLITICIAN'S JOB to do this breaking news stuff. They are elected not because they are experts at running a security operation, but because they a good enough to regulate the aforementioned (without needing specialist knowledge), and generally have policies and outlooks that are popular at the time of the election.

I don't want the Home Secretary on the breakfast news gloating over how they've foiled Dr No's evil plans. Partly because I've learnt from their past behaviour not to trust the feckers. But mainly because it's just plain undignified. I want a faceless bureaucrat to give me the facts straight to the best of their knowledge now, to reassure me where necessary, and to advise me on how I should adjust my immediate behaviour to help keep the world running smoothly. Maybe a short press release or statement from No. 10 or the Home Secretary saying that the professionals have their full support. But that's all. We can start the reasoned and informed debate (and political point-scoring...) at a later time when more is clear. Part of the blame on the sensationalist press too.

So maybe now you have an insight into why when I turned on the telly this morning over breakfast, my immediate reaction was to wonder either what other bad news New Labour is trying to bury, mixed in with a sense of deja-vu and that I should just turn it off until they discover the feck-up this time. And I actually disappointed myself slightly with these feelings to be honest, but I suspect similar ones might've been behind Brian's post.

Making serious matters like actions to foil terror plots both political and media events is not the way I like it happening. Quiet, unannounced action, and a lot of behind-the-scenes work please. (Which there obviously has been in this case to be fair). Maybe a short factual press release a week or two after the action. Where the public is affected (the handluggage thing), then there have got to be better and more efficient ways of introducing changes to procedures than by announcing it on the TV.

[GT98]

Making serious matters like actions to foil terror plots both political and media events is not the way I like it happening. Quiet, unannounced action, and a lot of behind-the-scenes work please. (Which there obviously has been in this case to be fair). Maybe a short factual press release a week or two after the action. Where the public is affected (the handluggage thing), then there have got to be better and more efficient ways of introducing changes to procedures than by announcing it on the TV.

Well thats the problem...the Media blows everything out of proportion...ever hear the saying: If It bleeds, it leads? Not much you can do about that since the Media is in the business of making money

[TransformX]

Problem is this - If they go silently, trying to make it smooth and just because of that, something goes wrong and people die... The opposition will be on their necks, shouting "Why didn't you go public? Lifes were at sake and you were playing secret agents !?". There's always the flip side. The one I pick is the 'better safe than sorry'. Better suffer inconveniences and loss of cash than a potential loss of lives and thus even greater inconveniences.

[The PIT]

I'm just trying to think how you keep a thing like this quiet.

Media would catch onto it striaght away and a statement would have to be issued. Like it or not the whole world now moves on spin.

By the way the Forrest gate one of those gentlemen was later arrested for child porn which makes me think he was grassed up from within his own community.

The proof of the pudding will come later if this comes to charge.

I find it very interesting that people are finding it hard to believe that they are people in this society that will do terrorism.

I'm trying imagine if this plot was succesful and the resulting outcry then.

[TransformX]

I find it very interesting that people are finding it hard to believe that they are people in this society that will do terrorism.

I'm trying imagine if this plot was succesful and the resulting outcry then.

For some reason, people find it harder to digest politica/nationalist crimes.
You tell them a paedophilia network was found and they won't question it for a moment. You tell them that certain people of a certain religion used their position to commit any kind of crime, and they'll get slightly skeptic. Tell them people of a certain nationality committed a crime, then it's either a Mafia (easy for people to grasp, for some reason) or another terrorist mumbo jumbo.
So, crimes that have to do with sex, violence, money, racial hatered and other means of immediate (even if sick) saatisfaction of some sort are easy to understand and accept. More elaborate crimes with new parameters such as religion and/or power positions stink of conspiracy and are harder to believe/accept. Crimes based on nationality, now that's either war or politics (both not easy to digest) while anything out of that frame is almost sci-fi. *shrug*

[KvHagedorn]

With British "justice," these guys will be out in 6 months. They are dangerous even to hold in prison because they can recruit there. PUT A FRICKEN BULLET IN THEIR HEADS. Geez.. you know, Britain was a great power when they used to draw and quarter people.

[Dr Mordrid]

Geez.. you know, Britain was a great power when they used to draw and quarter people.

Tell that to William Wallace

That said their 'jurisprudence' does tend to be a bit too "PC" for American tastes.

Solution: Extradite them here and we'll try them in Virginia or Texas!! In no time they'd be meeting their new husbands in Levenworth

[KvHagedorn]

Perhaps you could extradite them to the "paradise" "island" of Atlantica, where they can get their 79 virgins.

[Brian Ellis]

You tell them a paedophilia network was found and they won't question it for a moment.

Even that's not strictly true: remember the case in France, where a bunch of people were arrested for this crime and released, I think, 18 months later because it was manifestly a "put-up" job? Too bad for the guy who committed suicide and the two teachers who lost their jobs and, probably, careers (mud does stick). There was not even a milligram of proof that they were involved and the judge had some pretty tough things to say against the police.

One of the real problems is that the police have to justify their existence by continually improving their statistics on arrests for serious crime. How many times do they arrest - and even obtain convictions - just anyone rather than admit they are stumped? Serious estimates show that over 10% of the inmates of the UK prison graveyards with stretched necks did not commit the crime for which they were hanged, and I have no reason to believe that it is much different in other countries. If the police cannot find the evidence that will convict a suspect, they will sometimes fabricate it. Similarly, intelligence (was there ever such a misnomer?) organisations will fabricate "evidence" to suit their ends - and please their masters.

And I agree with GNEP that making political capital out of judiciary matters is totally immoral. At one time, the executive, the judiciary and the parliament had strict rules how they could act with each other. These have now become obfuscated, especially over the last 25 years and this is not a move for the better. Certainly, media are not without blame, but they have also been manipulated by politicians who love to gild their own lilies, creating scapegoats as they go along.

Back to the present case. I have never said that it was a conspiracy. I did say it could be one, as a hypothesis. And I have never said that 9/11 was a conspiracy. I'm still keeping an open mind on the present case. The evidence released to the media is still pretty thin but this is for obvious reasons, at this stage. I see the number of suspects under arrest has now dropped from 24 to 22, implying there were at least two innocent men amongst them.

As for the publication of the names with frozen bank assets, I understand that this may be a legal necessity. If so, then it could not be used to nullify eventual trial proceedings.