(a) jumping at every shadow, treating every suspicious package as a potential doomsday device, banning more and more carry-on items, until the public is convinced that airline travel is one slightly less dangerous than dousing yourself in jet fuel and setting yourself on fire, or
(b) Not overstating threats, and in particular not overreacting to would-be terrorist plots that never got off the ground because the people involved were already being watched by half the intelligence agents in Britain, and instead levelling with the air-travelling public and saying “Look, it’s mathematically impossible to make airline travel 100% safe, but even now statistically you’re still safer on an airplane than you are driving to work in the morning, and El Al hasn’t had a hijacking since the 60’s so I think that means we can get this terrorist threat under control.”
I never thought I’d actually be praising George Bush for his “please keep shopping” comments after 9/11, but in hindsight that’s actually one of the sanest things he’s ever said. The terrorists are not the greatest danger to the airline industry. We are the greatest danger to the airline industry, if we allow our fear of terrorism to override our better judgement. Making the terrorists out to be a bigger threat than they are is as bad an economic threat as terrorism itself.
Terrorism can be defined as a tactic. Network implies a leader. These groups are apparently hatching these plots themselves. Who says they were state sponsored.?!8 of the 911 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. They financed. They have been accused of financing gbterrorists for years. Are we at war with Saudi Arabia?
It was said that terrorism is an act of war. You changed to state sponsored. You have to prove it was.
You left out “not blowing up” as an alternative choice. And did it ever occur to you that one of the reason that we haven’t had a major incident is because people who know more than you or I are doing their job to keep it that way?
I know what you’re trying to say and there is some truth to it but neither of us have access to intelligence information. You’re acting under the assumption that it’s less than my estimations. Since I’m at arm’s length to the airline business I get a lot of anecdotal information that doesn’t make the papers. From what little info I’ve been exposed to there appears to be a strange fascination with airlines from the same folks that brought is 9/11. JM2C
You know that part of my post where I mentioned El Al? Let me be more explicit: I think El Al is a model of airline security. And I’m pretty sure “not blowing up” is on El Al’s to-do list. So can we please take the “not wanting to blow up” as a given, and move on? “Not overstating the threat” isn’t the same as “ignoring the threat”.
(Sigh) Yes. It did occur to me. You have stated the obvious. But this doesn’t affect my point.
Yes, one of the reasons why risk level of airline travel is so low is the tireless efforts of those charged with airline security. That doesn’t change the fact that the risk of airline travel is low. It also doesn’t change the fact that passengers overstating the risks of airline travel doesn’t do anyone any favours, except possibly the terrorists.
With all due respect, I’m not acting under assumptions. Nor am I acting under anecdotes. I’m acting on the fact that (a) airline travel is statistically as safe as houses and (b) the London plot was in the end about as dangerous as those guys in Florida who tried to by al-Qaeda boots from an undercover cop. No, I don’t have access to intelligence information, and aside from your “anecdotes” neither do you. But ignorance is not data and I refuse to treat it as such.
The Security Forces here have said that there are some 600 people like this under close surveillance. They said that they did not want to move on these people as they wanted to find out more. Their hand was forced by an arrest of a person in Pakistan and their subsequent torture that led to a suggestion that this group was far more advanced than it was. The Government entered a convenient panic that supported the Home Secretary’s assertion the day before that the British public were not as ‘concerned’ about terrorism as the Government would like them to be- that is to say that the public, the politicians and the judiciary were refusing to give the governmnet the powers that it wanted.
How convenient to arrest these plotters and dominate the news cycle for two weeks (also coincidentally removing Lebanon from the front pages- the Government received enormous criticism over its tacit support for Israel’s actions in Lebanon and Gaza that much opinion in the UK saw as War Crimes.) Problems solved.
And the information shows that manufacturing TATP in an aircraft washroom is the stuff of schoolboy fantasy.
If you cannot produce a cite to say this is possible (and a cite from an expert, not from the press quoting government briefings) then I am afraid that I will continue to call BS on the whole concept and consider that these idiots were conspiring to do something that was essentially impossible. I suspect that this will be part of their defence.
What British Laws do you think that I should be afraid of? Discussing things on the internet. DIsagreeing with the security services. IMHO, Americans are more at risk over this sort of thing than are the British. The UK government has not been as successful at suppressing dissent over TWAT as has the US Government.
DO you not think that people briefing the press might want to infer this as part of their spin on the case. My question is: where are the facts. I believe that many facts that would support their assertions are patently missing.
And to add to the list of Government over reaction and hyperbole (Ricin ‘plot’, Ground to air missiles, execution of a Brazilian, shooting of a man and pistol whipping his family and their neighbors, Man United bomb plot etc.) we now have the video plot- ‘Being Asian in possession of a Video Cassette’:
Rauf Abdullah Mohammad, 26, sunk his head into his hands as he was found not guilty at Woolwich crown court of four terrorism charges related to making the tape. The crown had alleged the video was a film of “high-profile targets” made to help Islamist terrorists plot and commit an attack on the capital.
But the jury, with their not guilty verdicts, appeared to accept Mr Mohammad’s case that the hour-long film was a souvenir of his time in London.*
In these dark days I thank Og for the independence of the British Jury system, The House of Lords, The European Convention on Human Rights and the activist judicial system. WIihout them we would be even further down the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
There are still quite a few dubious cases to come- let’s hope that the Jury system and the judiciary save us from these too.
In connection with the above case, many of those charged under the ‘Making a bomb on a plane’ plot are merely charged with possession of martyrdom videos, jihadist material or with failing to inform the authorities of their knowledge about the activities of others- it is likely that juries will be as sceptical about this as about everything else. The latest law which allows these prosecutions has not been tested in court- I suspect that it may prove impossible to gain convictions under many of the new clauses. We shall see.
You seem to be mostly talking to yourself in this thread. I’ll give this one last try (and no, I repeat, I WON’T post any cites on this subject).
You seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding here. Now, I haven’t done any chemistry in years myself, and it wasn’t my major in any case (engineering was), but a potential suicide bomber doesn’t NEED to go through all the proceedures listed to make TATP IN A STABLE FORM. Do you get it? Appearently not. You see, they don’t NEED to make a product that safe and transportable (which is what the cite you gave earlier was attempting to do with ice baths and keeping the temp below 10c, etc etc)…they simply need to create a suspension of the various chemical components that can readily explode…something that will happen if you dump those chemicals together in a confined space (like a sealed metal or glass jar) and shake it vigorously. At room temperature the major byproduct would be DADP…which is significantly less stable (and more volitile) than TATP. You see, they, as opposed to your friendly anonomous chemist, don’t CARE if they blow up making the stuff…in fact, thats kind of the idea.
A modern aircraft is a relatively fragile thing…it would only take penetrating the outer skin at altitude to, if not bring the plane down, at least make things pretty hairy for the passengers and crew. And such an explosing has at least the potential to rupture the outer skin…if not do more severe structural damage, depending on the quantities of chemicals used, their success in suspending them, vaporization of the mixture, and other factors I won’t pretend to guess at (or at least won’t go into here).
IIRC there were aproximately 19 people arrested in the raid. Lets assume that their big plan was 3 to a plane, one each carrying a component. That would be 6 teams…or 6 target planes. If only 1 worked (pretty good odds all of them would work to one degree or another…from simply a scary loud bang to potentially severe structural damage) and severely damaged or even destroyed a plane, then its a success from their perspective.
Another thing you don’t seem to be taking into account is…maybe their expectations wrt a success rate are different than your own when calculating such a plan. For you, maybe its silly for them to try something like this if there is only (as a WAG) a 10% chance of success. However, THEY may feel that a 10% chance is worth the effort…after all, they WANT to die anyway, might as well trying something off the wall on the off chance it will work. AQ pulled off quite a trick on 9/11…and I’d say THEIR odds were probably only about 10% for success. The mission was a golden bb though…maybe these folks figured they’d get lucky too.
Guess you’ll have to continue to live in your fantasy world then, 'cause I have no intention of producing a cite showing that its possible to make a highly unstable liquid explosive out of the components listed by dumping them together in a confined container, hoping the thing doesn’t detonate immediately, then shaking vigorously…and hoping for the best. Or maybe the worst. Maybe someone else will provide such a cite…not me.
Tell you what though. If they make that part of their defense and get off because their defense laywers can prove that its impossible to make an unstable explosive with enough explosive force to damage an aircraft then post that…and you win. I shall await developments.
[nitpick]
While the remark doubtless has been uttered at other times, it’s most famously credited to Henry Stimson, who made it while serving as secretary of state under Herbert Hoover when he ordered the State Department’s cryptanalysis office to be closed in 1929.
[/nitpick]
