Massive attack foiled in England

[mr_genius]

I wonder if this will put any egg on the face of the nay sayers. Mmmm, nah, probably not.

 

 

of course not

 

they have a new complaint, Bush said "Islamic Fascist". that is the new big deal, brillant move on the left wings part.

[Balta1701]

Interesting thing I read was that the Brits became aware of this by doing much the same things that Bush is getting racked over the coals for, monitoring electronic communications and such. Don't have all the specifics but it seems to work. I wonder if this will put any egg on the face of the nay sayers. Mmmm, nah, probably not.

Of course, no one out there has really suggested anywhere that the government shouldn't be able to monitor electronic communications at all. All we want is for Mr. Bush to follow the law and get a FISA warrant when he's doing so.

[shoota]

Any news on the beaten terrorists, like who are they, what organization they belong to, if they acted because of their religious beliefs?

[Texsox]

Stadiums, owned by private interests or government entities, always have the right to conduct security, charge for entrance and admit/reject anyone. So yeah.

 

 

Private property - their call. But probably won't happen, for financial reasons.

 

 

Grey area, given its public transit.

 

 

Up to the cab company, which again, is private.

 

 

Public street, so no, no searches.

 

 

Private property, so if they choose, yes.

 

 

Of these, only walking down Michigan Avenue could really be construed as a right.

 

So after being searched at the office building, the retail store, the stadium, the train, plane, and taxi, does it really matter if the government isn't allowed to search you? That's the point I am making. We are on a path were all freedoms will be meaningless.

 

If it is unsafe to travel via a plane next to someone, why allow anyone to walk in a crowd on Michigan Avenue without being searched? Think about this for a minute. You get on a plane with dozens on up to a couple hundred people. Count how many people will be at a busy street corner in Chicago tomorrow at lunch time. Why should we be more concerned about being in a plane or on a bus than walking? When searches becomes routine we then give up that right and allow the police to have you empty your pockets and open your purse when they ask.

 

Is that better or worse for society? It is easy to give a "if you have nothing to hide" or "if it saves one life" argument. And perhaps those are valid positions.

[pierard]

Interesting thing I read was that the Brits became aware of this by doing much the same things that Bush is getting racked over the coals for, monitoring electronic communications and such. Don't have all the specifics but it seems to work. I wonder if this will put any egg on the face of the nay sayers. Mmmm, nah, probably not.

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." To some personal privacy is the quintessential liberty. Also, many "nay sayers" were more upset about the process than the concept.

[Rex Kickass]

Interesting thing I read was that the Brits became aware of this by doing much the same things that Bush is getting racked over the coals for, monitoring electronic communications and such. Don't have all the specifics but it seems to work. I wonder if this will put any egg on the face of the nay sayers. Mmmm, nah, probably not.

 

Actually, that's not entirely true. Two men were on a "watch" list in the UK. (The US has had these too, with little interference or protest for decades.) They traveled to Pakistan to visit family and instead visited some terrorist group - which one isn't exactly clear, might be Al-Qaeda - might not. By tracing their actions after the two people returned to the UK, they identified a group of 25-30 British citizens of Pakistani descent that the two people seemed to be in close contact with. They also added in a spy of their own. (Again not illegal in the US either with the proper warrant)

 

Just to let you know, it appears that the bomb was going to be made of a British sports drink, a peroxide based chemical mixed together in flight. The two combined can create a liquid explosive which was to be detonated by a flashlight bulb.

 

No liquids are permitted into the sterile zone (secure) of an airport at this time in the US. The only exceptions are formula, breastmilk, insulin and prescription medication. Taste tests are required for these exceptions. Everything else goes into checked baggage or thrown out in the airport. Drinks may be purchased in the sterile area but not brought aboard the plane. Apparently TSA will be setting up second checkpoints at boarding locations to make sure nothing illicit is brought aboard carry on luggage.

 

In the UK, books are not allowed on board at the moment, but I'm sure this will change shortly. In the UK, they also prohibited cargo from going on passenger aircraft leaving the UK for now.

 

In the US, cargo still goes on your "super-secure flight" unscreened. 21% of the payload of your flight is completely unscreened if you are flying in the US.

[Texsox]

No liquids are permitted into the sterile zone (secure) of an airport at this time in the US. The only exceptions are formula, breastmilk, insulin and prescription medication. Taste tests are required for these exceptions.

Stay in school kids or this could be your next job . . .

[southsider2k5]

On the US side of the investigation

[Queen Prawn]

Stay in school kids or this could be your next job . . .

 

I am more curious how they are planning to taste the insulin. :puke

[southsider2k5]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/cbed2e12-28b5-11db...00779e2340.html

 

MI5 has been tracing this group for quite a while now... I wonder when some of the details on how they got their info will start to leak out?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Arrests in Pakistan led to British cell being activated

[Rex Kickass]

Amazing column on slate about this from William Saletan

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2147492/nav/tap1/

 

We're living in a liquid world. All the solid lines—states, borders, battlefronts—are melting. British Home Secretary John Reid made that point in a speech yesterday. Then he reassured Britons that their government, through tougher immigration control, was protecting them from terrorists, "many of whom come from far beyond our shores and have no real connection with our nation."

 

Nice try. According to reports, all 20 or so alleged conspirators arrested in the new plot are British citizens. Sealing your borders won't protect you.

 

So, what do we do? As Reid put it,

 

What happens when the threat to our nation, and hence to all of us as individuals, comes not from a fascist state but from what might be called fascist individuals? Individuals who are unconstrained by any of the international conventions, laws agreements or standards, and have therefore, unconstrained intent? Individuals who can network courtesy of new technology and access modern chemical, biological and other means of mass destruction, and who have therefore unconstrained capability?

 

The answer is, some of us die. And the rest of us grieve, but we go on, doing our best to fight the bad guys and heal the world. The grieving and fighting and healing never end the dying. "We are probably in the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of World War II," Reid observed. "While I am confident that the Security Services and Police will deliver 100% effort and 100% dedication, they can never guarantee 100% success."

 

That's the bottom line: We die. In a liquid world, you can't seal off evil. All you can do is fight liquid with liquid. You have to absorb the tragedy, flowing around and through it. You need the strength of a river, not a rock. You need resilience. You can't be untouchable, but you can be undefeated.

[NorthSideSox72]

So after being searched at the office building, the retail store, the stadium, the train, plane, and taxi, does it really matter if the government isn't allowed to search you? That's the point I am making. We are on a path were all freedoms will be meaningless.

 

If it is unsafe to travel via a plane next to someone, why allow anyone to walk in a crowd on Michigan Avenue without being searched? Think about this for a minute. You get on a plane with dozens on up to a couple hundred people. Count how many people will be at a busy street corner in Chicago tomorrow at lunch time. Why should we be more concerned about being in a plane or on a bus than walking? When searches becomes routine we then give up that right and allow the police to have you empty your pockets and open your purse when they ask.

 

Is that better or worse for society? It is easy to give a "if you have nothing to hide" or "if it saves one life" argument. And perhaps those are valid positions.

I am NOT in the "I have nothing to hide so search me" crowd. Others in here I am sure are aware of my stance on the FISA B.S. and other encroachments on real, protected rights and freedoms. That is why I made the post earlier saying that I am 100% OK with the new travel stuff, but hope we are dumb enough as a nation to start bargaining away or Constitutionally protected freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.

[southsider2k5]

A British Muslim gave a keep tip that broke apart the plot

 

Days of Carry-on luggage are over.

[Texsox]

I am NOT in the "I have nothing to hide so search me" crowd. Others in here I am sure are aware of my stance on the FISA B.S. and other encroachments on real, protected rights and freedoms. That is why I made the post earlier saying that I am 100% OK with the new travel stuff, but hope we are dumb enough as a nation to start bargaining away or Constitutionally protected freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.

 

I was posing that to the group. I believe there are two themes here that would make intersting discussions.

 

Why go through all this screening to stop one person in a crowd of 200 on an airplane, when there will be at least that many on a crowded street corner in every major city? You don't have to walk down Michigan Avenue you chose to. Isn't the risk just as high?

 

When we consent to being searched everywhere else, does our right to keep the government from searching us become meaningless?

[Balta1701]

I was posing that to the group. I believe there are two themes here that would make intersting discussions.

 

Why go through all this screening to stop one person in a crowd of 200 on an airplane, when there will be at least that many on a crowded street corner in every major city? You don't have to walk down Michigan Avenue you chose to. Isn't the risk just as high?

 

When we consent to being searched everywhere else, does our right to keep the government from searching us become meaningless?

The risk on a street is not nearly as high as it is on a plane. Planes are basically flying bombs (Jerry, at the NSA, this is only a description, not an actual threat). You are flying through the air on the principles of physics with a gigantic tank of highly flammable and potentially explosive liquid only a few feet underneath you. If you want to kill 200 people on a street in Chicago, you need an absolutely enormous bomb. You need to quite literally drive a car into a gigantic crowd of people and blow it up. To do that on a plane, you need a small explosion, good enough to either puncture the fuel tank or rip the skin of the plane. Hell, a Fire alone can bring a plane down if it catches the right thing (i.e. that Valuejet flight).

 

A plane is the safest way to travel because of how well built they are, but they're so incredibly well built because they are flying bombs. If they're not well built, they can go off.

[Texsox]

The risk on a street is not nearly as high as it is on a plane. Planes are basically flying bombs (Jerry, at the NSA, this is only a description, not an actual threat). You are flying through the air on the principles of physics with a gigantic tank of highly flammable and potentially explosive liquid only a few feet underneath you. If you want to kill 200 people on a street in Chicago, you need an absolutely enormous bomb. You need to quite literally drive a car into a gigantic crowd of people and blow it up. To do that on a plane, you need a small explosion, good enough to either puncture the fuel tank or rip the skin of the plane. Hell, a Fire alone can bring a plane down if it catches the right thing (i.e. that Valuejet flight).

 

A plane is the safest way to travel because of how well built they are, but they're so incredibly well built because they are flying bombs. If they're not well built, they can go off.

 

How would you repsond to this . . .

 

The risk on the street is greater for the individual. You are correct that a bomb on an airplane would be more likely to kill a group of people. But for the individual, does it matter if they were the only ones killed by a car bomb, instead of one of a hundred that were killed on an airplane? Isn't this about protecting individual lives? Doesn't the person on the street also run the risk of knives, guns, cross bows, traffic accidents, etc?

 

I'd be interested in adding up airplane fatalities through terrorism versus car bombs, suicide murders, etc.

[Balta1701]

How would you repsond to this . . .

 

The risk on the street is greater for the individual. You are correct that a bomb on an airplane would be more likely to kill a group of people. But for the individual, does it matter if they were the only ones killed by a car bomb, instead of one of a hundred that were killed on an airplane? Isn't this about protecting individual lives? Doesn't the person on the street also run the risk of knives, guns, cross bows, traffic accidents, etc?

 

I'd be interested in adding up airplane fatalities through terrorism versus car bombs, suicide murders, etc.

Well...when you count Iraq...

 

Seriously though...yes, in terms of total numbers killed, there are more people killed walking down the street by terrorists than in planes. But in terms of per capita...there are quite a few more people on the streets of the world every day than there are flying in planes. Like 7 billion versus a couple million. So the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack will almost certainly go up considerably the moment you step on a plane.

[Texsox]

Well...when you count Iraq...

 

Seriously though...yes, in terms of total numbers killed, there are more people killed walking down the street by terrorists than in planes. But in terms of per capita...there are quite a few more people on the streets of the world every day than there are flying in planes. Like 7 billion versus a couple million. So the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack will almost certainly go up considerably the moment you step on a plane.

 

So then considering the small potential for surviving the attack, airplanes should be singled out as needing greater protection. Combined with the thought that people do not need to get on airplanes.

[Rex Kickass]

Want a stunning statistic? In cases of catastrophic airframe failure (loss of aircraft) about 55% of passengers survive.

[southsider2k5]

How would you repsond to this . . .

 

The risk on the street is greater for the individual. You are correct that a bomb on an airplane would be more likely to kill a group of people. But for the individual, does it matter if they were the only ones killed by a car bomb, instead of one of a hundred that were killed on an airplane? Isn't this about protecting individual lives? Doesn't the person on the street also run the risk of knives, guns, cross bows, traffic accidents, etc?

 

I'd be interested in adding up airplane fatalities through terrorism versus car bombs, suicide murders, etc.

 

There is one bit of logic missing here though... the enemy we are fighting doesn't care about total fatalities as much as they care about making a huge impact on the USA both ecnomically and having a big show to prove to the world that they can take on the Great Satan and we are powerless to stop them. They have no interest in killing people one by one. They want to kill 10000 at a time, once, not 50 a day.

[Balta1701]

There is one bit of logic missing here though... the enemy we are fighting doesn't care about total fatalities as much as they care about making a huge impact on the USA both ecnomically and having a big show to prove to the world that they can take on the Great Satan and we are powerless to stop them. They have no interest in killing people one by one. They want to kill 10000 at a time, once, not 50 a day.

The amazing thing is though, if they really wanted to bring this country to a standstill, they'd be able to do it easily with just a few per day, as logn as they happened in this country. We're damn lucky they haven't figured that out yet.

[southsider2k5]

The amazing thing is though, if they really wanted to bring this country to a standstill, they'd be able to do it easily with just a few per day, as logn as they happened in this country. We're damn lucky they haven't figured that out yet.

 

If they learned nothing from the Washington sniper attacks, that should be it.

[longshot7]

Can't wait til this stupid paranoia is over months from now. BOOKS are now banned in the UK? Because if you rub the pages together, you can start a fire? And all nice Americans can't bring water on your flight - talk about overreacting. This will change in about a month, but until then, what a pain in the ass. I remember immediately following Sept 11, you couldn't even pick someone up at the curb after their flight - what the hell good did that do? None. Now we've gotten smarter and changed that rule and have stupid new ones.

[southsider2k5]

August 16th was to have been the date of the attack, today was supposed to be the "practice" run

 

________________________________________________________

 

Al Qaeda member held in Pakistan in connection with the investigation

[southsideirish71]

Can't wait til this stupid paranoia is over months from now. BOOKS are now banned in the UK? Because if you rub the pages together, you can start a fire? And all nice Americans can't bring water on your flight - talk about overreacting. This will change in about a month, but until then, what a pain in the ass. I remember immediately following Sept 11, you couldn't even pick someone up at the curb after their flight - what the hell good did that do? None. Now we've gotten smarter and changed that rule and have stupid new ones.

 

Well maybe we can go back to the good old days where you can get your knives and weapons on the plane again.