London Bomb Plotters- How serious were they?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Pjen]
I just don’t understand what you mean by the bolded lines above.
[/QUOTE]

Well let us spell it out simply.

If you saw a guy ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ and seem to be fairly affluent, what would you think ?

A) They kept their trap shut
B) They made a deal - and got let out
C) They kept their trap shut, but it looks like they made a deal

The ones that stay in are obviously sleeping with Halal virgins
The ones that get out have sold out, so they get executed by their old friends.

The guys are young and impressionable, turning them is a certainty, but whether one bothers with trivia is another concept.

Mostly long established terrorist organizations land up being run by security services - infiltration, identification, intimidation, conversion and promotion.

82

[QUOTE=xtisme]
No, thats not what they are getting at. The explosive used in the London bombing probably WAS the stable solid form of TATP, which needs to be processed in the way the OP’s cite expressed (ice baths, careful filtering, kept at less than 10 degrees C, stirred constantly untl thickened, etc etc). Thats because the guys who blew up the subway needed a stable product they could carry and detonate when and how they wanted too.

No, their claims seem to revolve around the effort to ignore that you CAN mix this explosive at room temperature. Its pretty fricking dangerous to do as its very likely to begin reacting immediately (i.e. its likely to blow up in your fact). It IS possible to get a suspended solution at room temperature however without all the safety precautions, but the result is an EXTREMELY unstable and highly volitile explosive compound. For whatever reason, the OP and appearently a lot of folks on the Brit news/blog scene don’t want to think that terrorists would do something like that…not when they are comforted by the description of how to make the stuff in the safe way (something you absolutely couldn’t do on a plane). Since you can’t safely mix the explosive on a plane…well, Q.E.D. it was impossible to do, so therefore these guys weren’t REALLY serious. They were just playing at terrorist, blah blah blah.

-XT
[/QUOTE]
You’re only describing 1 type of bomb made with hydrogen peroxide (triacetone peroxide or TATP). That was what the bombs were made of that didn’t explode in what would have been the 2nd wave of attacks. As noted it does not store well. The bombs that actually went off were hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMDT). Kinda looks like a trial test to see which bomb works better. And I don’t think suicide bombers are too picky about the dangers of mixing TATP.

How serious they were is not the question, they made suicide video’s. How competent they were is the question.

83

[QUOTE=Pjen]
Now, when we do have real bombers with a well thought out plot (7/7) the security services knew nothing of them, nor of the 24/7 lot. Keystone Cops spring to mind!
[/QUOTE]

We did not believe that people could be so idiotic before 7/7

MI5 were ‘waiting for Godot’, now they have a new lease of life.

I reckon that moving from nothing to a very effective counter formerly unknown terrorist force is pretty good going.

You, Pjen, seem to underestimate the ability of an old and well worn machine to crank back to full efficiency

84

[QUOTE=Pjen]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]

I already said no. Look it up for yourself. I managed to find several sites (and an entry in the anarchists handbook), despite not being exactly the google master.

[QUOTE=Pjen]
Yes, and have a minimal effect on the integrity of the aircraft.
[/QUOTE]

I already acknowledged that options range from a hell of a large bang to blowing a hole in the side of the plane. All options lead to at a minimum discomfort (if having ones hand blown off is uncomfortable) to the wanabee terrorists though. You stubbornly continue to insist on only the minimal aspects though, as if the other is not physically possible. YMMV.

[QUOTE=Pjen]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: No.

[QUOTE=Pjen]
No, I just think that the government over-hyped this hopeless plot for its own reasons- the same as the Man U Bomb, the Ricin plot as well as non existent ground to air missiles at Heathrow, the execution of the Brazilian and the shooting of the innocent man and pistol whipping of two asian families. There is a bit of a pattern here- over-reaction and spin on all of these events until the wheels came off at a later date. Now, when we do have real bombers with a well thought out plot (7/7) the security services knew nothing of them, nor of the 24/7 lot. Keystone Cops spring to mind!
[/QUOTE]

They may very well have over-hyped the thing…that however doesn’t mean there was no threat at all, as you seem hell bent on insisting. You use past incidents as if its some kind of club to ensure that because the government MAY have played fast and loose in the past (MAY), this means that they always will. Never heard the boy who cried wolf story, ehe? The crux is…sometimes there really IS a wolf.

-XT

85

[QUOTE=Magiver]
You’re only describing 1 type of bomb made with hydrogen peroxide (triacetone peroxide or TATP). That was what the bombs were made of that didn’t explode in what would have been the 2nd wave of attacks. As noted it does not store well. The bombs that actually went off were hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMDT). Kinda looks like a trial test to see which bomb works better. And I don’t think suicide bombers are too picky about the dangers of mixing TATP
[/QUOTE]

No, the OP is the one who is only acknowledging (without a cite) that one explosive is possible with the ingrediants, and it can only be manufactured in the safe and stable way his cite details. I have already said one other possible highly unstable substance, though I didn’t go into details. There are several variants, all highly dangerous and highly unstable. Of course, if you are a terrorist, you don’t exactly care for things like safety proceedures.

[QUOTE=Magiver]
How serious they were is not the question, they made suicide video’s. How competent they were is the question.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. In addition, as I pointed out earlier, they may have been willing to risk a low order of success rate on the off chance they got the reaction they were looking for. If they had planned multiple attacks, they may have simply hoped that ONE of them had the desired effect…and that the others, at a minimum, producted a large scary bang (and a mess from the hapless terrorists). Remember, they are trying to instill TERROR…not necessarily to kill people (though thats a happy bonus when it happens). Even the failed plot has had that effect in fact…unfortunately.

-XT

86

[QUOTE=xtisme]

They may very well have over-hyped the thing…that however doesn’t mean there was no threat at all, as you seem hell bent on insisting.
[/QUOTE]

I never said that there was no trheat at all. My original wording:

*"Now, undeniably, these people were acting in a potentially culpable manner and needed to be brought to book, but

given the information that came out before British Contempt laws came into effect and the above NY Times briefing, and considering the British Government’s previous record on this matter- collapsed ‘Ricin Plot’, Non-existant ground to air missiles at Heathrow, the execution of an innocent Brazilian on the Subway in London, and the shooting of a young Asian man and the pistol-whipping of his family and next door (Sikh) neighbours,

I just do not believe that there is a real case against these people that warranted the massive (and politically useful) government over-reaction to the case.

Can anyone convince me otherwise? Is there really a serious case of real terrorism here?*

[QUOTE=xtisme]

You use past incidents as if its some kind of club to ensure that because the government MAY have played fast and loose in the past (MAY), this means that they always will. Never heard the boy who cried wolf story, ehe? The crux is…sometimes there really IS a wolf.
-XT
[/QUOTE]

The past is a good guide to the future. The British Government has used these supposed terrorist activities in an attempt to ramp up public ill-feeling toward such people in order that they may introduce more draconian legislation. There was no Ricin plot, there were no ground to air missiles, there was no plot to blow up Manchester United, the dangerous (now dead) terrorist was an innocent Brazilian plumber, the two Asian brothers were loyal British Citizens, not Terrorists (and nor were the traumatised Sikh family next door who were beaten up by the police), etc. etc..

The net effect of this spin has not been a hardening of the public attitude or a softening of the views of the judiciary, but in fact it has proved counter-productive. It is the British Government that has repeatedly cried wolf.

87

[QUOTE=Pjen]
I never said that there was no trheat at all. My original wording:
[/QUOTE]

Um…maybe you intended it to be read that you belive there is some threat in there somewhere, but to me it looks like you are saying ‘the government lied in the past, they blew things out of proportion in the past, and therefore this was also just bullshit. No threat here. Move along folks, move along.’

Thats how I read it (and how I read it again when you posted from your OP).

[QUOTE=Pjen]
I just do not believe that there is a real case against these people that warranted the massive (and politically useful) government over-reaction to the case.
[/QUOTE]

Re-open the thread then when this thing goes to trial. If it is indeed a massive government over-reaction, if the government really has no case, then they will be forced to let these folks all go. If not, and they are convicted of attempted terrorism…well, you were wrong, and there really WAS a case against them. I’ll be interested to see if you re-open this thread if thats the case.

[QUOTE=Pjen]
The net effect of this spin has not been a hardening of the public attitude or a softening of the views of the judiciary, but in fact it has proved counter-productive. It is the British Government that has repeatedly cried wolf.
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps they have. And perhaps this plot didn’t have much of a chance of success. I don’t see how that means it was no threat though, or that the folks doing it weren’t serious. Even if you are right, and all those other instances were examples of the British government crying wolf, that doesn’t mean there aren’t wolves out there, or that THIS time the wolf was real.

I’m all for being skeptical, and I certainly conceed that from your perspective its warrented (from my own it looks serious enough).

-XT

88

[QUOTE=Pjen]
I never said that there was no trheat at all. My original wording:

*"Now, undeniably, these people were acting in a potentially culpable manner and needed to be brought to book, but

The past is a good guide to the future. The British Government has used these supposed terrorist activities in an attempt to ramp up public ill-feeling toward such people in order that they may introduce more draconian legislation. The net effect of this spin has not been a hardening of the public attitude or a softening of the views of the judiciary, but in fact it has proved counter-productive. It is the British Government that has repeatedly cried wolf.
[/QUOTE]
I’m lost when you said supposed terrorist activities. You’re passing judgment on the arrests without any knowledge of the information the police are working with.

Subway and bus bombings are the order of the day. This is reality, not a game of words. When that many people are arrested it should be taken seriously.

89

[QUOTE=Magiver]
I’m lost when you said supposed terrorist activities. You’re passing judgment on the arrests without any knowledge of the information the police are working with.
[/QUOTE]

you have itv the wrong way round. Remember Innocent until proven Guilty?

Three years ago the government carried out a similar arrest of eleven people and the ‘Ricin Plot’ started. When that came to trial, all but one person were declared Not Guilty. The last person was convicted of a smaller and different offence.

90

[QUOTE=Pjen]
Three years ago the government carried out a similar arrest of eleven people and the ‘Ricin Plot’ started. When that came to trial, all but one person were declared Not Guilty. The last person was convicted of a smaller and different offence.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, murdering a police officer is a “smaller and different offense.” :rolleyes:

91

I’m particularly taken with the contention that the dates of the arrests were “suspicious”. After all, there were other news items happening! News that had to be taken off the front pages!

Question, what days AREN’T convenient for the government to announce arrests of this sort? If there are other things happening, well, perfect time to take them off the minds of the citizenry. If nothing is happening, well, perfect time to stir up panic without distraction. Heads they win, tails we lose.

And I thought the news was released to help Joe Lieberman win the primary, not take the Israeli-Lebanon war off the front pages. I wish you’d get your stories straight.

There’s always something happening that the government wants to hide, there’s always a reason to trumpet the successful foiling of a nogoodnik terrorist plot. If the timing is always suspicious, that’s logically equivalent to saying the timing is never suspicious.

92

[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Yeah, murdering a police officer is a “smaller and different offense.” :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

Pjen does have a point, that the murder was during the police raid, not as part of a premeditated plot.

93

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
No, I found that amply demonstrated in your early posts (as well as the general run of threads you begin). One wonders why you couldn’t simply question the merits of your government’s case against these terrorism suspects without dragging in the Patriot Act et al.
[/QUOTE]

It was mentioned in passing. A little sensitive about it are we? :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]

It’s encouraging that you recognize some of the defects of your system as regards civil liberties (although puzzling that you on the one hand praise legislation against public disclosure in criminal cases, while doing your best to circumvent these “protections”). :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Where did I “praise legislation against public disclosure in criminal cases”?

My comments seem to be limited to:

“British and US law differ in the freedom of the press over several matters. One of these is over matters which are sub judice. To the American eye this looks like prior restraint which is anathema to Americans; to the British eye, American Preess coverage all too often looks like the Press acting as an aid to the prosecution. This is a balance between “Freedom of the Press” and “Due Process”. The US has solved this problem by ignoring Due Process and upholding Freedom of the Press; the British have solved the process by limiting the Freedom of the Press whilst upholding Due Process. Whichever is right or wrong is a close call.”

My new bolding.

94

[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Yeah, murdering a police officer is a “smaller and different offense.” :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

I was referring to the alternative charge used- not possession of Ricin, or conspiracy to murder, or any other such crime, no: causing a public nuisance!

He had previously been found guilty of murder whilst resisting arrest. Separate matter.

95

[QUOTE=Pjen]
you have itv the wrong way round. Remember Innocent until proven Guilty?

Three years ago the government carried out a similar arrest of eleven people and the ‘Ricin Plot’ started. When that came to trial, all but one person were declared Not Guilty. The last person was convicted of a smaller and different offence.
[/QUOTE]
2 way street. You’re dismissing the charges, which is tantamount to accusing the police of malicious conduct.

You don’t think there’s anything to it. I think a raid of 40 people over 2 countries which uncovers suicide tapes and the same material used in local bombings is something that should be taken seriously. Give credit where credit is due.

96

[QUOTE=Pjen]
It was mentioned in passing. A little sensitive about it are we? :slight_smile:
[/quote]
In passing? To quote your complete irrelevancy:

Admirable nationalist fervor. :dubious:

What all that has to do with the charges pending in the alleged U.K. airline bombing plot, is a mystery. It just seemed to reek with irony that you would bring this stuff up while ignoring suppression of criminal trial coverage in the U.K., and then following up with a fatuous declaration that “the British have solved the process by limiting the Freedom of the Press”. :smiley:

97

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
In passing? To quote your complete irrelevancy:Admirable nationalist fervor. :dubious:

What all that has to do with the charges pending in the alleged U.K. airline bombing plot, is a mystery. It just seemed to reek with irony that you would bring this stuff up while ignoring suppression of criminal trial coverage in the U.K., and then following up with a fatuous declaration that “the British have solved the process by limiting the Freedom of the Press”. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

You really don’t understand the concept of competing freedoms do you.

In the US there is greater freedom of the press and less due process.
In the UK there is greater due process and less freedom of the press.

I did not say “the British have solved the process by limiting the Freedom of the Press”, what I said was:

“British and US law differ in the freedom of the press over several matters. One of these is over matters which are sub judice. To the American eye this looks like prior restraint which is anathema to Americans; to the British eye, American Preess coverage all too often looks like the Press acting as an aid to the prosecution. This is a balance between “Freedom of the Press” and “Due Process”. **The US has solved this problem by ignoring Due Process and upholding Freedom of the Press; the British have solved the process by limiting the Freedom of the Press whilst upholding Due Process. **Whichever is right or wrong is a close call.”
I happen to lean toward the US choice. I never defended the UK situation.

I do believe that you are engaging in ad hominem attacks here and ignoring what I am saying in reality.

To repeat, I do not praise the British system of prior restraint. If anything I am usually more critical of the situation in the UK than in the US. It is merely because you see a criticism of the US that you assume this is anti-Americanism or nationalist fervor. A less loyal subject than me you would find it difficult to find.

98

Oh, but BTW I do think that almost accidentally the British system has dealt better with the War on terror bullshit than the US system has.

Note that I say almost accidentally- I am not claiming this out of ‘nationalist fervor’ but remarking that we have avoided many of the anti-libertarian actions domestic and international, that the Bush admin has engaged in over the past six years.

The Judiciary and the Upper House have given an anti-libertarian government a really hard time, and even the government controlled legislature has started to make things difficult for Blair and Co. They seem to have stumbled into this rather than entered it as a concerted action.

99

And again, putting things in context, my quote
“Sorry, in the UK we only have ‘regular crime’. We do not recognize something called the War on Terror. We remain a liberal democracy with no ‘Patriot Act’.”

was an ironic barb aimed at chappachula’s outrageous comment:
“But terrorism isn’t a regular crime. It’s an act of war.”

100

[QUOTE=Pjen]
You really don’t understand the concept of competing freedoms do you.

In the US there is greater freedom of the press and less due process.
In the UK there is greater due process and less freedom of the press.
[/quote]
The part about less freedom in the U.K. is a matter of law. The idea that this suppression of the public’s right to know produces greater “due process” is a matter of opinion.

First you said:

Now you’re saying:

Good - now that’s progress just in the course of one relatively short thread. We’ll make a civil libertarian of you yet. :smiley:

I’ve criticized U.S. policy in numerous threads here, including ones in which you’ve participated, so obviously the mere finding of fault with U.S. policy is not at issue. What strikes me as hypocrisy as well as pointless xenophobia is your being unable to resist an irrelevant slam at U.S. policy and then declaring how wonderful British democracy
is, while ignoring the obvious suppression of British liberty (which you took pride in circumventing).

At least we’ve gotten you to admit that U.S. policy on this score might just be more in keeping with a free society. Good show. :slight_smile: