Terrorists - 8/10 attempted bombings

bitofatit

Novice Member
Those arrests on August 10 for the attempted bombings on planes….WHY are the Police being so cavalier about announcing what evidence they have got including bomb making equipment, martyr videos, chemicals etc.
I’m proud to live in the UK where you are innocent until proved guilty and where possible jury members cannot be swayed by what is in the media. I think it’s called Subjudicy (can't spell it though!!) .
I think the police are running the risk of getting certain of these people off the hook because they may not get a fair trial. As far as I’m concerned the Police should button it, gather the evidence and let the courts decide. If they are guilty – fine throw the book at them but this is Blighty and we shouldn’t move the way of the way of USA when these kind of things play out in the media before the trial. Don’t the press just love it analysisng, surmising, even sometimes making it up…..

I note the BBC report on the matter indicates that the suspects are also guilt of

“In a highly unusual development, Mr Clarke went into significant detail about the evidence so far uncovered by police inquiries. These included:
• 69 searches of houses, flats and business premises, vehicles and open spaces
• Searches had also found more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones and 8,000 computer media items such as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs
• Police experts have removed 6,000 gigabytes of data from the seized computers alone.”

TBH I think he above haul would be found in midst of the garages and living rooms in at least half of the homes of the members of AV Forums!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5271998.stm
 

Astraeus

Well-known Member
With regards to releasing information such as martyrdom videos and the like prior to any case being built against them, it's something I believe law folks call 'disclosure'. Anything built up by the prosecution need not be released until the time of the trial and, when released into the public domain, it gives defence solicitors more time to build defence cases, no matter how shaky, than they would have had in the case of the police withholding information. In my view, it's best to withhold the evidence until trial comes about otherwise we'll end up in a society whereby 'trial-by-media' is the new norm. I don't strive for that.

It seems your real gripe is with the media for being so quick to condemn these 'terrorists', not with the police. If it is with the police, let the debate commence...
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
They've just charged them! Just saying as I was sceptical given the past track record

But do we blame the MPs for wanting some good PR after Iraq? The police for doing Labour's PR work? The media for wanting a front page? Us for wanting to know? I mean passengers forcing 2 asian men off a plane...
 

bitofatit

Novice Member
Too true, I have a general beef with the media - but whilst the Police should quite rightly disclose to the Defence lawyers all of the evidence, I don't really think that should include all of us! I'm slightly concerned in that as the police feel that they have put their foot in it with one or two of the last terrorist incidents thay feel that they need to re-assure us this time that they have "got the bad guys" - you know the sort of thing George Bush might say / do! Anyway I think we all need to know the full story but we need to wait until after the trail! ;)
 

Woodywizz

Distinguished Member
Terrorists - 8/10 attempted bombings



Sorry, I thought this thread was about gameshows on Channel 4 :oops:
 

Joe90sDad

Banned
Everything disclosed is deliberate. They've done nothing but try and beef up the threat since day one.
Why do we need a whole list of all these computers and the rest of the ****? So idiot Sun readers will think - ooh, these terrorists are well sophisticated, innit

I'll wait till it comes to court. If it's anything like the previous people they've charged the evidence will be little more than a bunch of idiots talking big or at the most some who've got plans off the internet to make a pipe bomb or some other crude device.
 

mrtbag

Novice Member
How many times do we hear on the news about somebody being charged with a murder, and that being followed with the statement "a weapon has been recovered".

I don't see any difference (apart from the scale of crime).
 

Moosh

Well-known Member
8/10? Surely it would be 10/8 :)

Anyway... Whilst browsing The Register, I saw an article about the feasibility of the plot:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

An amusing and interesting read.

OT (but related in a way): I can't believe the Monarch flight yesterday and the Chinese whispers that took place that got two people arrested by the local police! Are we going back to the "good old days" of witch dunking? Remember, next time you don't like the look of someone you can have them arrested. Nice! :mad:

Moosh
 

Knyght_byte

Novice Member
mmahmed said:
8/10? Surely it would be 10/8 :)

Anyway... Whilst browsing The Register, I saw an article about the feasibility of the plot:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

An amusing and interesting read.

OT (but related in a way): I can't believe the Monarch flight yesterday and the Chinese whispers that took place that got two people arrested by the local police! Are we going back to the "good old days" of witch dunking? Remember, next time you don't like the look of someone you can have them arrested. Nice! :mad:

Moosh
back in the 80's if a couple of people with an irish accent were looking suspicious they'd get stopped and detained.......why? because then the IRA were the known threat to general public in england........fast forward 20 years or so and now the threat comes from Islamic extremists (note i say extremists, not the whole of Islam)......unfortunately Islamic extremists can come from pretty much anywhere, but the majority of known examples will be asian/middle eastern and african looking folks.....so a bit of common sense says these are more likely to be stopped, and if they are coming across suspicious by their behaviour i think its more than fair they are stopped to prevent a possible incident......every single day people from every country in the world are boarding flights with no more than a by or leave......but with one example of two folks being temporarily detained, everyone is shouting the racist card...........sorry but this is daft......whilst i dont agree england should have gone in to Iraq or Afghanistan myself, i also dont think england should have helped arm Afghanistan and other ex-Soviet Satellites against Russia.......BUT, in the country i'm born in and live in, i would prefer that the powers that be do as much as possible to safeguard me.....ok it may mean some mistakes in detention are made, and i do feel sorry for those detained wrongly.....but the fact is, you either make a few mistakes or you just let people get away with things.....the problem is, 2 people get temporarily detained may look wrong, but if they had been dodgy (for want of a better word) and got on the plane, then they could have caused a major catastrophe.......


You can never make everyone happy......however i think most people are happy when they know there is less chance of them being blown up by some idiot who thinks god (regardless of religion) says its a good thing to do.....if God does exist and does think its something worth doing from time to time, then he/she/it certainly isnt a deity i'd be happy worshipping!

Everyone has a right to life, to make the most of their life.....no one as far as i'm concerned has the right to take any other life but their own, and even then i've always done my utmost to help friends who have been close to taking their own life to realise they dont need to........perhaps bush and blair go about things the wrong way, and most likely have pathetic motives as their reason for doign things......but the outcome of preventing someone from taking my life is one i welcome......just wish they'd manage that with it being the initial imperative, rather than an accidental result....
 

Astraeus

Well-known Member
I agree very much with what you are saying, Knyght_byte, and found myself making a similar point to a 'fashionable pacifist' earlier today. Those who are so willing to kick up a fuss about the protection of the dignity of the Asian contingent of a flight must surely respect the right to live above the right to dignity - not only for themselves but for those around them. The Asian community in Britain is sending out ridiculously mixed messages regarding their stance on terrorism at present. On one hand, they condemn it and slate the terrorists in retrospect but I'm becoming increasingly aware of their 'community spirit' minimizing opportunity for the police to investigate these crimes amidst claims of racism. I feel some communities need to open up somewhat in order to out the terrorists whilst, for the time being, accepting that some inconvinience may be caused in order to achieve the greater good.

I now travel with an Irish passport and 'look' Irish and it causes me a minor inconvinience of being asked more question than when I travelled with a British passport. I don't kick up a fuss about discrimination but I think that if this is how they question me, there's hope yet in our airport security. It's reassurance, not racism.
 

Knyght_byte

Novice Member
glad to get some agreement..lol

I am on my dads side Irish, altho both his parents are Irish they have lived over here all their lives so he and I speak with a London accent.......but i have curly/wavy brown hair, blue eyes and a ginger goatee.....i've been given a wary eye on some occasions when moving around...lol.....do i care? no.....at least it shows they are doing their job, as police they should be suspicious.....not really doing their job if they just sit there drinking coffee all day long ignoring potential threats....

sadly these days the police have to be careful and spend more time worrying about whether they should arrest someone because he might be able to turn it round on the race card rather than worry about whether or not he is guilty........its like the police have become an X-Factor style reality setup.....doesnt matter if they sing badly or well, the public boo them because they are not what the public think they should be.....trouble is part of the public are the problem.....so its a bit silly for them to behave as the problem wants them to.....lol
 
T

tim_kay

Guest
Interesting read from 'The Register' I've not read about TATP before but whats said makes sense, however we have living proof of 7/7 that Terrorists have been advanced enough to use C4 or a alternative explosive.

In my eyes all this is media PR trying to take a middle finger one year on from the London bombings. Granted there are terrorists all around us, but to publically release major details as people say 'innocent before proven guilty', all reasonings go out of the window when a country unites into one way of thinking.

In my eyes its this country that is failing. If we were so bothered we would tackle the problem head on. As everyone knows all the terror attacks have been aimed at transport areas. Now the most obvious solution is just to up the security at all of these locations. Now the major argument is cost. Now its obvious to me that the cost of 10 pounds per hr for a security guard on planes, trains, buses is better than the millions in distruction from 7/7, not to mention the lives lost.

Its like the argument with drugs, drugs will never go away but if you cut out the dealers then it's harder for people to get. If you cut out the possibility for terror then it will be harder for terrorists to strike. But they'll never go away.
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
Was listening to the radio on the way to work this morning and they were discussing the subject and as a follow on, about getting the information out of these suspects.

I was gladdened to hear so many people comming forward supporting the torture of terrorist suspects to get information on the where abouts of explosives and any planned actions.

" These terrorists had no respect for us when they blew up the tube, so I have no issue with torturing them to get the information "

makes me proud to be British with fellow countrimen like that :rolleyes:
 

mrtbag

Novice Member
Ethics Gradient said:
" These terrorists had no respect for us when they blew up the tube, so I have no issue with torturing them to get the information "
It's a new take on the 'eye for an eye' way of thinking. We now have "an eye for an intended eye".
 

Joe90sDad

Banned
Look, the threat of terrorism is very low compared to other dangers we face everyday. But if it's going to happen it's going to happen, the chances of stopping it are crap.

How many IRA (who were a far more cohesive group) plots did we thwart?

This government is doing it's best to inflate the threat and the paranoia for their own purposes. And people seem to be swallowing it as easily as their lies over Iraq.

These airline security measures are nothing more than to feed more paranoia. I've yet to see any proof of creating a decent explosion on a plane without a sizeable amount of equipment.
 

DJT75

Distinguished Member
Joe90sDad said:
These airline security measures are nothing more than to feed more paranoia. I've yet to see any proof of creating a decent explosion on a plane without a sizeable amount of equipment.
I'm starting to think like this.

The other thing that never makes any sense to me. Why the spectacular all the time, why would a organisation spend months planning how to get explosives through security, onto a plane, into the toilets, whip out their 2 year chemistry set etc.... Seems far to much hassle to me. If you wanna cause massive destruction, 100s of deaths & bring the country to a stand still - just walk into any Check-in area & do it there. 2 weeks ago there were something like 600,000 people this side of security at Heathrow stranded or waiting - seems like a good target to me if you're that way inclined.
 

Light_User

Novice Member
bitofatit said:
Those arrests on August 10 for the attempted bombings on planes….WHY are the Police being so cavalier about announcing what evidence they have got including bomb making equipment, martyr videos, chemicals etc.
I’m proud to live in the UK where you are innocent until proved guilty and where possible jury members cannot be swayed by what is in the media. I think it’s called Subjudicy (can't spell it though!!) .
I think the police are running the risk of getting certain of these people off the hook because they may not get a fair trial. As far as I’m concerned the Police should button it, gather the evidence and let the courts decide. If they are guilty – fine throw the book at them but this is Blighty and we shouldn’t move the way of the way of USA when these kind of things play out in the media before the trial. Don’t the press just love it analysisng, surmising, even sometimes making it up…..

I note the BBC report on the matter indicates that the suspects are also guilt of

“In a highly unusual development, Mr Clarke went into significant detail about the evidence so far uncovered by police inquiries. These included:
• 69 searches of houses, flats and business premises, vehicles and open spaces
• Searches had also found more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones and 8,000 computer media items such as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs
• Police experts have removed 6,000 gigabytes of data from the seized computers alone.”

TBH I think he above haul would be found in midst of the garages and living rooms in at least half of the homes of the members of AV Forums!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5271998.stm


Hmmm...I not sure whether or not this has been taken out of context. News24 and Newsnight were being very careful to say that the details regarding the amount of computer/mobile/sticks equipment siezed were released so that people would realise why it is taking so long to bring charges (or release suspects); not that it was all filled with material that was going to be used in trials as evidence.

The factual details of the nature of the charges that have been brought and the speculative details of "evidence" that has been found and "leaked", were treated as separate items.
 

Knyght_byte

Novice Member
DJT75 said:
I'm starting to think like this.

The other thing that never makes any sense to me. Why the spectacular all the time, why would a organisation spend months planning how to get explosives through security, onto a plane, into the toilets, whip out their 2 year chemistry set etc.... Seems far to much hassle to me. If you wanna cause massive destruction, 100s of deaths & bring the country to a stand still - just walk into any Check-in area & do it there. 2 weeks ago there were something like 600,000 people this side of security at Heathrow stranded or waiting - seems like a good target to me if you're that way inclined.
a plane blowing up is as you say spectacular......in other words it causes an impression....

blowing up people just mulling around whilst a disgusting act, doesnt have the same effect......mainly because people rely on transport to get places, if they fear getting on them, then not only have the terrorists killed a few innocents but also stopped others from getting on with their daily lives so easily.....

100 deaths can be more impacting than 1,000 if the scene is set right.....

example being they could have flown the aircraft in to actual living areas on 9/11, could have caused 10 times the casualty rate given how packed some areas of NY are....instead they chose a symbol, the twin towers, altho they probably expected a higher mortality rate, the main effect was the psychological impact of where they hit.......they also got away with saying it was about the politics not just outright killing of civilians (what i say here of course is working along the assumption it was Al Queada that did it and not as CT consider the US government....)
 

mickrick

Banned
To everyone sceptical about this load of BS - I'm sure we don't know the half of it.

To those that have swallowed this BS hook, line and sinker - *** wise up and smell the non-fair trade coffee.
 

DJT75

Distinguished Member
Knyght_byte said:
a plane blowing up is as you say spectacular......in other words it causes an impression....

blowing up people just mulling around whilst a disgusting act, doesnt have the same effect......mainly because people rely on transport to get places, if they fear getting on them, then not only have the terrorists killed a few innocents but also stopped others from getting on with their daily lives so easily.....

100 deaths can be more impacting than 1,000 if the scene is set right.....

example being they could have flown the aircraft in to actual living areas on 9/11, could have caused 10 times the casualty rate given how packed some areas of NY are....instead they chose a symbol, the twin towers, altho they probably expected a higher mortality rate, the main effect was the psychological impact of where they hit.......they also got away with saying it was about the politics not just outright killing of civilians (what i say here of course is working along the assumption it was Al Queada that did it and not as CT consider the US government....)
The Twin Towers were different, that was as you say impressionist but the way these planes are supposed to have come down is purely to distrupt the daily working of air transport & take out a few civilians in air & on land at the same time. Exactly the same as it was for the London underground bombings.
I'm not talking about the actual number of casualties but if you want to scare people from flying, then scare them from even going into an unsecure airport in the first place - take out an entire check-in area & every airport in the world closes down, not just a few cancelled flights.

I was walking around Heathrow the night before this all came to light (Wed 9th) waiting to pick my brother up. He was delayed & bored of waiting in arrivals at Terminal 3 I walked over the departures for a change of scenery & to try find a bar with the football on. I've used Heathrow hundreds of times but people generally check-in & go through to departures fairly quickly because there's more to do that side of security. Terrorism was in my thoughts as I wondered around because I was staggered at how many outlets, food places there are this side of security. Why so much? What's the need I thought? It's incouraging people to hang around in unsecure places at international airports.. In the US at many airports, you pretty much check-in off the street & go through (although there is nothing the other side over there)..
 

Similar threads

Trending threads

Latest threads

Top Bottom