Continuity on 21/8/2006 at 20:22
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I'd expect fully formed bombs to be found, not just the ingredients that could go into making a bomb.
Quote:
Susan Hemming, head of the CPS counter terrorism division, said the alleged plot was to "manufacture and smuggle the component parts of improvised explosive devices on to aircraft and assemble and detonate them on board".
i.e. assembly on board. Which makes a lot more sense than having a bomb in a bag somewhere, as a) it's a lot easier to search for and b) Mingan's linked register article indicates that "the homebrew variety of TATP is highly sensitive and unstable" once mixed. I have no idea how they may have made the explosives, but I imagine most IEDs are fairly unstable. So good luck with that expectation!
Also:
Quote:
He added a number of video recordings known as "martyrdom videos" had also been recovered.
that is quite difficult to view as innocuous, if true.
Depends what chemicals, Paz. If they've bought several tonnes of fertalizer while not owning anything larger than the back garden ((
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate) hurr hurr), it's probably a bit iffy; whereas a modest supply of hair styler is a bit different.
OrbWeaver on 21/8/2006 at 20:28
Quote Posted by Continuity
i.e. assembly on board. Which makes a lot more sense than having a bomb in a bag somewhere, as a) it's a lot easier to search for and b) Mingan's linked register article indicates that "the homebrew variety of TATP is highly sensitive and unstable" once mixed.
Mingan's linked Register article also points out that attempting to produce a usable quantity of TATP on a plane would be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible.
BEAR on 21/8/2006 at 20:50
Quote Posted by Ulukai
There's a damn fine line between infringing the rights of citizens and catching people with malicious intent as they walk through the airport scanner.
9/11 and 7/7 fucked up the wrong side of the line, and people died. I'd much rather they fucked up with days to spare and really annoyed people, to be honest.
The problems that lead to those incidents (at least 9/11) werent that the government just couldnt defend the people because they were too constrained by protecting civil liberties, they were just fucking lazy (in the US at least, I dont know about 7/7).
Which means you cant say really that they need to take away so many liberties, if they were less incompetant and STILL couldnt keep the people safe well then maybe we need to rethink things. Besides, america isnt any safer I dont think, the republicans really dont do all that much homeland security stuff, they spend most of their hours and dollars badmouthing the democrats rather than actually doing anything.
SD on 21/8/2006 at 20:53
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Mingan's linked Register article also points out that attempting to produce a usable quantity of TATP on a plane would be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible.
Quite. Though given that the British government has actually (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5176522.stm) tried to convict people of attempting to buy a substance that (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury) doesn't actually exist, I think we can take it as read that the feasability of any "terror plot" is of little consequence to how seriously they will take it.
Renegen on 21/8/2006 at 21:16
This red mercury thing is really on the limit of what I can tolerate, you're locking up people just for having the intent. This is like what the brilliant FBI did in the 30s when they organized communist rallies and then proceded to arrest the leaders. Hell organize a street race and arrest anyone who shows up, not right.
Continuity on 22/8/2006 at 03:59
OrbWeaver: Yes; I have no idea what substance they used (the article doesn't give any reference to where it gets TATP from) or if it would have worked. The point is that whatever it was, they had good reason to keep the componants apart until trying to assemble them onboard, and so StD's requirement that an assembled and ready bomb be found is never going to be fulfilled.
StD: The article you linked says that the entire point of red mercury is that it doesn't exist :confused: I mean, it's specifically made up for the purpose of stinging people trying to build nukes, so the government prosocuting them for trying to purchase it seems kind of logical, no? It's not like you could have an actual purpose for it, e.g. large quantities of fertaliser. It probably fits several definitions of entrapment but I have no sympathy for anyone convicted attempting to buy the stuff.
Also, I believe the article states that the News of the World brought the case, not the British government.
Fringe on 22/8/2006 at 04:24
Quote Posted by Continuity
I have no sympathy for anyone convicted attempting to buy the stuff.
Especially not when there's a goddam
wikipedia article about how it's a fake substance used in police stings.
Renegen on 22/8/2006 at 04:28
History is usually written after the events unfold.
SD on 22/8/2006 at 05:02
Quote Posted by Continuity
StD: The article you linked says that the entire point of red mercury is that it doesn't exist :confused: I mean, it's specifically made up for the purpose of stinging people trying to build nukes
No, the term "red mercury" existed long before anyone used it in newspaper sting operations.
Quote:
Also, I believe the article states that the News of the World brought the case, not the British government.
The case was brought by the CPS under the Terrorism Act. The government actually tried to prosecute people under the Terrorism Act for attempting to buy something that does not exist. That's fucking frightening.
Vigil on 22/8/2006 at 10:31
It's also entrapment, allowing the defense to claim that the crime would not have been committed had the authorities not provoked it... this argument appears to carry no legal weight in British courts however.
