Liquid Terror Charges Dropped 364
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."
Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just went and tried that and yes, you still can. Have to be pretty quick though. I managed to get two matches out of five. I'm discounting the three where the phosphorous got rubbed off to the point it wouldn't have lighted anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
It was through pressure brought by the Grue lobby.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [interesting-people.org]
Opinion on those involved [craigmurray.co.uk]
More on the chemical side [theregister.co.uk]
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.
Spectacle vs Results (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with everything you said, but there is something I would like to add: what the authorities did wasn't even sound police work. It was a lame attempt for some good PR to justify the cost and inconvenience of all these policies designed to make us feel safe, even if they don't actually work.
Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group, gather more evidence and when there is a case, quietly arrest the suspects and let the justice system do it's job. Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the people in charge of the investigation were not subject to political interference at home, or abroad.
Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work. One gets you headlines, and the other gets you results. What a shame that massaging their own egos is priority #1.
Re:Spectacle vs Results (Score:4, Insightful)
But what if good police work turned up inconvenient facts? Such as, for example, there being no substantial threat from arab/muslim "terrorists", as the fabricated liquid bomb plot seems to substantiate? Or the likelihood of Israeli foreknowledge [muckrakerreport.com] of the 9/11 attacks?
Theater is essential to the War Of Terror, because without it the need for perpetual war evaporates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You presume that there are any results to get.
Given the really low rate of actual attacks over the last 10-20 years, it seems like there are probably less than 10 potential plots of any significance, maybe even less than 5, "out there."
Presumably the peo
Re:Spectacle vs Results (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother when you're allowed to torture people?
Given enough time, you get these guys to say anything you want.
Why waste all that effort to find the guilty, when you can just pick someone and beat them until they admit their guilt or agree to testify to someone else's guilt?
So what if the actual terrorists blow up a few more things, it only confrims that you need even more power to persue them!
I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here, but when you look at the big picture, it sure looks really bad.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There was an article in the science section of NRC Handelsblad [www.nrc.nl] a couple of weeks ago on interrogation techniques. The article was written because the whole torture discussion so far is about the morality of torture, not about the ef
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
It's almost laughable.
Thank god there's never been an ass bomber, think what we'd have to go through!
Ok technically my brother is an ass bomber but he's never flown. He leaks a green miasma though.
Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I like your ideas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has happened already. Where were you in 2004?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
*shudders*
Re: (Score:2)
HAH!
They're making a killing.
Surprise! (Score:2)
Great. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great. (Score:4, Funny)
I recently did this with an absurd quantity of alcohol on a bachelor party trip with some friends. Of course, we got a good-spirited security guy who laughed at us (and obviously thought about the same thing I do of these regulations) and waved us through. Despite the willingness to anal probe you before you board a flight, these men and women are definetly the bottom rung of a government agency and likely hate these new rules more than you do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
2) Remove 5 bottles at random.
3) Pour into glass.
4) Drink.
Now THAT'S liquid terror!
Re: (Score:2)
I was told by the duty-free shop past the checkpoint that any liquor I bought would have to be packaged and put on checked baggage - which
This liquid bomb this is such a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Which leaves us with only one reason why the UK government would make such a noise around this fantasy: to raise the terror feeling in the general population in order to pass more restrictive laws and embed the police state a little deeper.
I keep wondering why nobody stands up to these clowns. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad...
"Safe" (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if 'safety' would be a top priority.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No suicide bomber that I know of has ever targeted a bathroom. If a terrorist is going to go to the risk of carrying out a bomb plot (where just the act of planning/purchasing/collaborating is more than enough to put them in jail), and if they're rational and ascribe at least a little value to their life, they'll try to give themselves the best chance to get the explosives onto a plane, because it will have far more impact in that case.
Really, many liquid explosives are very unstable, and just the act of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we know they have the goal of blowing things up, not just themselves. And that goal stems from another goal of convincing the American public that they should be paid attention to or that they are a credible threat. They aren't afraid to waste their own lives in these attempts, but they have shown a marked reluctance to throw away their lives without achieving these goals.
So, there is a certain rationality to it.
What really surprises me is that they don't use the fact that they're likely being spi
Re:"Safe" (Score:5, Insightful)
When our guys die in uniform, they are heroes and patriots.
When their guys die they are crazy and irrational.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When our guys die, they're wearing uniforms and following (usually, and hopefully) an international code of agreed-upon behavior concerning how soldiers act.
When their guys die, they're dressed as civilians, targeting civilians.
If their guys are attacking an occupying force, they aren't terrorists.
Re:"Safe" (Score:4, Insightful)
When their guys die they are crazy and irrational.
I would say that is pretty much correct, but you left out some things....
When our guys win, we cheer.
When their guys win, they cheer.
When our guys abuse prisoners, we boo and they go to jail [msn.com].
When their guys cut off heads, or use electric drills to torture prisoners before execution, they cheer, brag, and put a video on the internet.
If our guys keep winning, we get to live in liberal democracies.
If their guys win, you, or someone who will be related to you, will end up living in a Muslim super state, the Caliphate, that unifies church and state, living under a harsh form of Sharia. The Taliban's interpretation might be a taste of it, given that Al Qaeda hung out with them:
And more about Sharia here [guardian.co.uk] and here [answering-islam.org].
Some of us are slaves to fashion.
They want to make us slaves to them [jihadwatch.org], or at the very least, dhimmis [jihadwatch.org].
Our guys and their guys have very different ideas about what to love.
Dealing in Death [nationalreview.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I keep wondering why nobody stands up to these clowns. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad...
Yeah, noone has ever used a contact lens fluid container with a liquid explosive and a casio watch to set off a bomb on an airplane. Nor did they assemble it in the airplane lavatory. That is just crazy talk [wikipedia.org]. It is clearly impossible.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations. You've just completely misconstrued the nature of the events. This plot was supposedly based on people smuggling various non-explosive liquids onto a plane to combine into a chemical explosive. The event you cite was a single explosive liquid being brought onb
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Modern security measures mainly look for metals and nitrates. Picture a few D-cell batteries in an electronic device filled with acetone peroxide (TATP - not a liquid but a powder and not really producable in an airplane toilet) with a phosphorus detonator. Phosphorus burns when exposed to air. Just encase a stick in a helium fill
Re: (Score:2)
Answer: It wasn't.
Unless you take the entire plane down, smuggling a bomb on board a plane is just moronic. If you're going to detonate a bomb that's only strong enough to kill maybe one or two people, why the FUCK would you do it in inside an airplane - one of the most secure locations you can find this side of a locked-down military base? Bragging rights? The thrill of it?
The only threats that should even be considered in regards to airplane security are those
Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke (Score:4, Interesting)
- Requires longer than a transatlantic flight to make, and
- Will explode if shaken (e.g. by turbulence) at several stages, although the explosion will only be big enough to kill the person mixing it.
Even discounting the fact that most flight attendants would probably be suspicious of someone spending eight hours in the toilet, it doesn't seem entirely feasible.Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, they are content to just sit back and not actually research the topic, even if it took 2 seconds. The fear mongering media doesn't help either.
It's like how congress on this side of the pond passed the patriot act without actually reading the entire thing.
Apathy on the part of the people is the cause of this, and the folks at the top are more than happy to pursue thei
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Soda (bigger than 3 oz.) can be brought on if purchased in the gate. Baby bottles of any size are also allowed. There are other exceptions, such as any medicines with a prescription.
People accept it because there's little they can do. It's either obey or not get on the plane. The only way to potentially change the rules (that I can think of) is to have a huge letter writing or signed petition campaign go to membe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's my explanation for the ban on liquids: the government is just covering it's arse. These guys (the ones making the decisions) are politicians and beauracrats, not scientists or engineers. Yes, it may be stupid and overreactionary. But I don't subscribe some sinister motive to these actions either. In my estimation,
Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke (Score:4, Interesting)
When I went through security I had to give up my ***potentially explosive*** 1L plastic bottle of Pepsi, and be hassled about wearing steel toed shoes (regulation work issued footwear).
After clearing security and getting into the holding pen..err...Lounge area, I went to a vending machine and purchased a GLASS bottle of orange juice.
Now, I'm not the stereotypical terrorist type, but yeah, I could kill a pilot or a couple stews with a broken bottle. It makes me so appreciative of the safety provided by those airline security fees I paid for, knowing they are being circumvented by the Coca-Cola delivery guy
Re: (Score:2)
This plot has been carried out before. There was a discovery program about it; I wish I could remember the details. A guy brought explosive components separately onto a plain flying to/from somewhere like Bangkok and assembled a bomb from his digital watch and liquid in a contact-lens-solution bottle. He pla
Re: (Score:2)
Here it is [wikipedia.org]. I hope the people who are doing this stuff aren't interrupting the people who are saying that it's impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that people are saying is impossible (or at least difficult enough to make it not worth it) is the idea of mixing up an explosive on board the plane from two or more innocuous looking liquids.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.pournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/m ail428.html#Carmack [pournelle.com]
The expert? John Carmack.
His qualifications? Mixing easily available chemicals into rocket propellants.
Diclosure of Bias:
I happen to respect both Jerry Pournelle and John Carmack. And I happen to think the register is a lousy "publication".
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
apparently launches missiles at its own cities to keep its citizens in check ==> Check (9/11, Cold War)
and is trying to brainwash its entire population into being literally incapable of understanding the very concept of freedom ==> Check (your very comment)
Re: (Score:2)
In Britain the government were pushing for 3 months imprisonment without charge under the guise of terrorism, they settled on 1 month. A lot of US and UK citizens are disappeared into Guantanemo bay. We don't launch nukes at our own to keep them in check, but we certainly overstress the dangers of terrorism to scare the populace and justify the erosian of liberties and freedoms. Which ties into the last point about brain-washing, our governments operate and justif
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Numerous experts have said there's no practical or safe way to make a bomb from separate liquids onboard an airplane.
Eh, perhaps...but this [wikipedia.org] was awfully close, and was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, no less.
Re:This liquid bomb this is such a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
It is right for us, the civilized members of society, to send a message that this sort of behavior will NOT be tolerated after 9/11 and 7/7. It should be made clear to these terrorists that we will lock them up in supermax for the remainder of their natural lives or hang them for treason when we catch them. The terrorists are the common enemies of all humanity and they should be treated as such.
This does not mean that we give up our freedoms, but rather that we deal with terrorists harshly when we catch them. It is legally no different than the special distinction that is made between ordinary crimes and hate crimes where the penalties are increased due to the ulterior motivations and heinous nature of the offenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm... I wonder if you could use a two part expanding foam - two separate containers of nondescript looking liquid which when mixed could quickly block off part of the plane from interference.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I call bullshit. [wikipedia.org] He didn't mix the chemicals onboard, all he did was take some wires hidden in his shoe, hook them up to his watch and some explosive he brought with him. Hardly a case of "inert liquids being a threat when mixed together" as is implied by this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Man...I do NOT know what state you live in...hehehe, but, that certainly isn't true in southern LA or TX for the most part.
I moved down here to LA years back...and most everyone I met...had guns, and lots of them. Frankly, I'm amazed anyone has the guts to ever break in a house down here...
I went to one friend's house...he opened a small closet, and the h
Remember: Be affraid! (Score:5, Insightful)
The "safety" measures were a show.
They had nothing to do with keeping people safe, and everything to do with keeping people affraid.
Re: (Score:2)
But the concern wasn't over household products, it was over more 'industrial' products put into ordinary containers.
Did they over compensate? yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember: Be affraid! (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything like that ever happens again, it won't be for a very long time. People know what happened on 9/11. You are not going to do so well with a melee weapon against a whole airliner worth of people who know they are fighting for their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
While the airline industry does an excellent job engineering their machines to stay skies (probabilistically), there are more public aspects to "safety" that have little to do with reality and more providing the illusion of safety. The movie "Fight Club" mentions this in passing: "placid as Hindu cows" when referring to the in-flight safety cards.
I believe the sentiment i
How's that saying go again? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
3 - 2 -1 (Score:2)
Political Knee-Jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's a lack of education. The people in control today would have approved of the actions taken 60 years ago. The public takes years to react in an organized way. And by then it's almost too late. We need to ask much better questions of those running for office. "What would you do if you were a Sena
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, but suppose next time they do nothing and many more British citizens are killed? Would you be willing to cut the government some slack for having lax security measures or would you blame
Inconclusive? (Score:2, Interesting)
As well as forgery charges, Mr Rauf has also been charged with carrying explosives. But his lawyer says police evidence amounts only to bottles of hydrogen peroxide found in his possession. Hydrogen peroxide is a disinfectant that can be used for bomb-making if other chemicals are added.
the article also states that Rauf is flagged as a ringleader for this particular operation/mission.
There were other arrests made here, so let's review:
Raul was found not guilty on terrorist charges which (IANAL) are inconclusive as he was
OK (Score:2)
A Pakistani judge...
Oh, well, all right then.
Don't mind me. I'm currently in full bore year end burnout mode.
Liquid Terror? (Score:5, Funny)
What liquid terror means to me... (Score:2)
Read the FAQ (RTFF) (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowadays all politics are global. Pakistan is in America's back yard, Britain is a puppet state. Stories like this on Slashdot just reflect reality, not how some anonymous coward from Outer Fencepost, Wyoming would like things to be.
Leading superpower? Not if we keep this up. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:My Rights Online??!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My Rights Online??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My Rights Online??!! (Score:4, Insightful)
U.S. Constitution, 9th Amendment. Quote: U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment. Quote:
Re: (Score:2)
India / Pakistan
ETA
Real IRA
ALF
Uganda
The US is not the whole world, despite what Fox & CNN might tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Now the fragment you mention, Real IRA, is still quite active although much less so than in years past.
Just wanted to clear that up for anyone who sees IRA and doesn't realize there are a dozen smaller factions of the IRA.
Re:My Rights Online??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Notice to egotistical Americans with no concept of "the outside world": terrorism didn't begin in 2001. Please learn some history and international politics before you embarrass yourselves further. Where does US politics come into the terrorist plots of the IRA,* or ETA, or November 17, or Aum Shinrikyo, or any of the many, many other current and historical terrorists who have or h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that they have a distinct odor or outgas much, so I'd say they'd be pretty difficult to find especially if put inside something like a laptop battery or an electric toothbrush.
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Video that shows something similar (Score:5, Informative)
The videos were from Brainiac, [youtube.com] and if you look carefully in the slow motion of the first bathtub they blow up, you can see the wire that leads over the size to the charge they set off. I've worked with cesium and rubidium, and they're not too much stronger than potassium- not enough that such a small amount would blow it up, anyway. Simply put, they fudged it with a small charge to wow the audience. Some great science going on there.
As for the "new terrorist binary explosive" video, that's simply a small demo charge in the post used to support the melon. The shower of sparks pretty much gives it away. No tiny amount of chemical exposives can cause that much damage. Moreover, if it were that strong, the author whipped up a massive batch of the stuff (in relative terms)- an explosive sufficiently sensitive to shock initiation that mixing it the wrong way would have killed him, when he could have made a much smaller batch. It's just silliness. It also seems the sky is a bit darker after the "explosion," as if the melon were removed and a small pyro charge was set off and spliced in there. The quantity of explosives used is far too small, even for the most powerful of primary explosives.
Disclaimer: I am, in fact, an explosives chemist with extensive experience with primary, secondary, and blasting explosives, including terrorist "improvised" explosives and devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)