PDA

View Full Version : UK Terror Plot Disrupted



reds1869
08-10-2006, 08:15 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm

RedFanAlways1966
08-10-2006, 08:20 AM
Thank goodness... and thanks to the people who stop terror like this from happening.

ochre
08-10-2006, 11:03 AM
I used to go to the US Air Force facility in High Wycombe. It's just down the road from Beaconsfield (RAEC, DSL). I think High Wycombe's also the place we went to watch movies. I saw dances with wolves and the good Robin Hood (the one w/o Costner) there.

Puffy
08-10-2006, 11:20 AM
Thanks Creek!

registerthis
08-10-2006, 11:39 AM
Great, and I get to fly tomorrow.

guess my hair gel's going in my carry-on...

pedro
08-10-2006, 11:41 AM
Currently they are saying no gels or liquids allowed in carry on bags for domestic flights.

Good to know. I am flying tomorrow.

Rojo
08-10-2006, 01:03 PM
I think Oliver Stone's behind it.

deltachi8
08-10-2006, 01:57 PM
I think Oliver Stone's behind it.

I thought it was Bob Boone.

If you are flying soon, get to the airport a bit earlier than normal and carryon only waht you really need to. No liquids at all (gel, toothpaste, shampoo, lotion, beverages, etc.) will be allowed to be carried on.

Johnny Footstool
08-10-2006, 02:36 PM
Will they require you to empty your bladder before getting on the plane? After all, no liquids...

TeamCasey
08-10-2006, 02:50 PM
Mothers can bring baby formula on board, but only after drinking it in front of security officials first.

registerthis
08-10-2006, 03:35 PM
Mothers can bring baby formula on board, but only after drinking it in front of security officials first.

Are you kidding?

God, these security measures are draconian.

dougdirt
08-10-2006, 03:40 PM
registerthis, he is totally serious. I was watching the news about it before the Reds game came on and thats what it said. I guess they want to be 100% sure.

Reds Fanatic
08-10-2006, 04:00 PM
British flights have even more restrictions. On British flights laptop computers, cell phones and Ipods are now banned.

TeamCasey
08-10-2006, 04:43 PM
I hear there are mountains of personal care products (shampoo, makeup etc.) piling up at the airport today. People are being told to take them out before going through security.

Rojo
08-10-2006, 05:06 PM
I hear there are mountains of personal care products (shampoo, makeup etc.) piling up at the airport today. People are being told to take them out before going through security.

What is they say about poor generals and last battles? Its ridiculous. They'll just keep finding new ways to blow up planes.

WVRed
08-10-2006, 05:30 PM
What did Tubby Smith do now?;)

remdog
08-10-2006, 06:45 PM
Ater 9/11 for awhile when going through security at Orange County security was making anyone carrying anything that might be flameable take a drink from it or throw it out. So, it's not the first time. May not be the last either. (Unfortunately)

Rem

Rojo
08-10-2006, 07:11 PM
Ater 9/11 for awhile when going through security at Orange County security was making anyone carrying anything that might be flameable take a drink from it or throw it out.

Would drinking gasoline deter a suicide bomber?

GAC
08-10-2006, 08:51 PM
The plan revolved around explosive liquids in carry-on luggage. People may think it's draconian or make light of these surveilance methods because of it's inconvenience or even that it's somehow a violation of their civil liberties (though I think that's a stretch).... but their objective is to protect lives and prevent another attack similar to a 9/11 (it's anniversary is fast approaching). Terrorists, one has to admit, are getting very inventive on their methods. And disrupting or badly damaging the commercial airways industry would be also be very damaging to the economy. They know that. So extra steps have to be taken due to the high amount of traffic and popularity of air travel.

And if they tried to narrow their search methods they would then be accused of racial profiling. ;)

GAC
08-10-2006, 08:58 PM
What is they say about poor generals and last battles? Its ridiculous. They'll just keep finding new ways to blow up planes.....Would drinking gasoline deter a suicide bomber?

So we should do nothing then right? Don't try to stay one step ahead of them.... quit wasting monies on intelligence to uncover these plans before they are implemented.... and get rid of these silly security alerts and increased surveilance because it's all useless.

What should they be doing in the area of airport security when it's commercial air travel that is the terrorist have targeted, and continue to do so?

RBA
08-10-2006, 10:00 PM
So we should do nothing then right? Don't try to stay one step ahead of them.... quit wasting monies on intelligence to uncover these plans before they are implemented.... and get rid of these silly security alerts and increased surveilance because it's all useless.

What should they be doing in the area of airport security when it's commercial air travel that is the terrorist have targeted, and continue to do so?


We should take the measures recommended by the 9/11 Commission to secure our most vulnerable infrastructure which remain virtually ignored. And, re-instate homeland security funding that has been cut for cities like Boston and New York.

Mass transit have been targeted by terrorist, and continue to be targeted. What are we doing about that? I can still take my Gatorade and flashbulbs on the subway.

I agree we should focus more on the likely subjects. If that's profiling, so be it.

paintmered
08-10-2006, 10:06 PM
Mass transit have been targeted by terrorist, and continue to be targeted. What are we doing about that? I can still take my Gatorade and flashbulbs on the subway.


True, but it is much easier to limit an attack's effectiveness when there are rescue services minutes away in an urban area than it is over the middle of the Atlantic. Once the plane leaves the ground, they are on their own in terms of internal security - especially on a transoceanic flight.

Sure it's completely reactionary, but one of the biggest things officials need to precaution against are copycat schemes. Eliminate the flamable liquids from the environment, and it eliminates the method of attack du jour.

RBA
08-10-2006, 10:11 PM
True, but it is much easier to limit an attack's effectiveness when there are rescue services minutes away in an urban area than it is over the middle of the Atlantic.

Once the plane leaves the ground, they are on their own in terms of internal security - especially on a transoceanic flight.

True. But far more people are vulnerable in an urban subway than on an aircraft liner. Especially after a New York Mets ballgame. How many down in an urban subway, and how many on a plane at a given time?

I'm not against taking additional security measures at the airport. I don't know why anyone would take what I said that way.

paintmered
08-10-2006, 10:38 PM
True. But far more people are vulnerable in a subway than on an aircraft liner. Especially after a New York Mets ballgame. How many down in the subway, and how many on a plane at a given time?

I don't really want to take this thread down a tangent, but here's my thoughts (I'm out of my area of expertise here).

The saving grace for a subway is that it is comprised of multiple enclosed containers. If a single explosion occurs, lets assume a 100% fatality rate for passengers inside that car. But, for that same blast to be effective against passengers inside other cars, it must penetrate two barriers (the outside wall of the first car and the wall of the second car).

A blast fragmentation warhead in the 20 kg class has a lethal radius of about 30 feet (+/-10ish). So I'm thinking the fatality rate in adjacent cars would be much less, probably around 10-20%. So the explosion would largely be contained to the single car.

An aircraft can be fatally crippled by a modest, well-placed charge. And an aircraft that has an explosion over an ocean will most certainly result in a 100% loss of life. Plus, there's the economic damage, just not in the loss of a $100-200 million aircraft, but the airline industry would be crippled as well.

Bottom line, they would both result in considerable loss of life but I think a large airliner is the higher priority target because the big killer is the impact with earth, not the explosion itself.


I didn't take your comments as suggesting you are against the additonal security measures. It's just the two scenarios shouldn't be treated in the same way for many different reasons.

remdog
08-10-2006, 11:21 PM
Would drinking gasoline deter a suicide bomber?

I was simply relating something that I observed in the past. Why take a shot at me (because that's the way your post came across to me)?

Would it deter a suicidal bomber? Perhaps; if the person's goal is to kill others as well as themselves, dying alone would not fullfill their goal.

Rem

remdog
08-10-2006, 11:29 PM
One theory that I have heard advanced was that the bombers were not just going to explode the planes over water but actually blow them out of the air over heavily populated areas. The idea was that, if they did it right (or even just got lucky) the falling debris would also kill and injure many, many more people on the ground. The debris would be indefensible and come without warning. The Pan-Am flight that crashed in Scotland caused incidental deaths but this was, supposedly, part of the plan to inflict as much damage as possible.

Rem

Mutaman
08-11-2006, 01:28 AM
Thank God George Bush is our president.

Mutaman
08-11-2006, 01:32 AM
And, re-instate homeland security funding that has been cut for cities like Boston and New York.



What, you don't agree with the findings of the Homeland Security Commission that Indiana ha 3,000 more potential targets than New York? (Including the Fort Wayne roller rink).

919191
08-11-2006, 01:52 AM
What, you don't agree with the findings of the Homeland Security Commission that Indiana ha 3,000 more potential targets than New York? (Including the Fort Wayne roller rink).

Some of the Indiana "targets" are odd. But i live 40 minutes from this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_Chemical_Depot


Everyone living near there is provided a warning alarm to let them know death is imminent.:(





IndyStar.com Local News Politics

July 13, 2006


America's No. 1 terror target: Indiana?
How 8,591 'assets' (such as an Amish popcorn plant) landed the state at the top of the government's watch list





By Cordell Eddings
cordell.eddings@indystar.com
About three miles from the nearest town, Brian Lehman's popcorn factory near Berne has somehow ended up on the federal government's list of potential terrorist targets.




IN THE CROSS HAIRS? Amish Country Popcorn, a small business near Berne in Adams County in northeastern Indiana, shows up on the state's list of 8,591 potential terrorist targets. - ROBERT SCHEER / The Star

MAKING THE TERROR LIST

• Without being specific, Homeland Security's list included 8,591 sites in Indiana out of a total of 77,069, or one out of every nine nationally.

• State officials placed all "critical resources and infrastructure" on the list of potential terrorist targets. That meant 5,456 public health assets, including 417 nursing homes, 41 tall buildings and some farm-related resources.

• The list included financial institutions, factories, Wal-Marts and other "assets to the local jurisdiction" that may affect people's lives.

'CRITICAL' ASSETS
According to the federal anti-terrorism database, Indiana has more resources listed as possible terror targets than any other state. The top 10 (with their population rank):

1. Indiana (15): 8,591
2. Wisconsin (20): 7,146
3. New York (3): 5,687
4. Virginia (12): 4,231
5. Texas (2): 3,804
6. Washington (14): 3,650
7. Nebraska (39): 3,457
8. California (1): 3,212
9. Pennsylvania (6): 2,873
10. Illinois (5): 2,059

New York Times compiled from Office of Inspector General, Homeland Security Department

"I don't have a clue why we're on the list. We're on a gravel road, not even blacktop. We're nowhere," said Lehman, owner of Amish Country Popcorn, which employs five people.
Nevertheless, Amish Country Popcorn is one of 8,591 places or events in Indiana that the Department of Homeland Security regards as serious potential terrorist targets, according to an inspector general's report that raised questions about the accuracy and relevance of what's known as the National Asset Database.
Indiana has about 30 percent more listed potential targets than New York (5,687) and nearly twice as many as California (3,212), putting Indiana atop the nation's list of potential terrorism targets.
What's more, the number of potential Indiana targets rose from 322 in 2004 to 8,303 in 2005.
Amish Country isn't the only odd-sounding site in the federal database.
Without divulging specifics, the list includes 77,069 U.S. sites where terrorists might strike -- including a flea market, a petting zoo, ice cream parlors, several Wal-Marts and a tackle shop.
The government's database is used to determine how much states should get out of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal anti-terrorism grants.
In its report, the inspector general's office questions the accuracy of the list, especially because of the inclusion of "non-critical assets."
It also criticized inconsistent reporting by states. For example, Washington state listed 65 national monuments and icons, while Washington, D.C., listed only 37.
The findings drew the ire of some lawmakers, particularly in New York, which saw its portion of funds shrink this year.
"Now we know why the Homeland Security grant formula came out as wacky as it was," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told The New York Times. "This report is the smoking gun that thoroughly indicts the system."
The Indiana Department of Homeland Security said federal officials are to blame for the state's large number of targets.
The list may have become inflated because states were left to interpret a request for potential targets however they wanted.
Pam Bright, a spokeswoman for the state's Homeland Security Department, said federal administrators asked Indiana to make a list of "critical infrastructure and resources," not a list of potential terrorist sites.
"There was not a clear definition of what they wanted, so Indiana took the safe side and submitted all of our important infrastructures," Bright said. "If that's not what they wanted, they should have sent it back and said that's not what they wanted.
"(These) are assets to many local jurisdictions," Bright said in explaining some of the stranger entries on the list.
Officials would not say whether all the sites have been told they're on the list.
"Nobody from the government notified me," said Lehman, the Amish Country Popcorn owner.
Jim White, director of Marion County Emergency Management, had another explanation.
"The Department of Homeland Security is a relatively new organization and, quite frankly, they are in the process of refining their data," White said.
"Have they got it right yet? Probably not. Will it be different next year? Probably."
White acknowledged the list includes sites in Marion County but would not disclose details.
"You don't put your vulnerabilities out there for everybody to see, because the (intelligence) folks on the bad-guy side read the newspapers every day," White said.
As for the popcorn factory, Lehman said he is "having fun" with the hoopla, and he's not concerned about a terrorist attack.
"I haven't lost any sleep yet."


Call Star reporter Cordell Eddings at (317) 444-6308.


Copyright 2006 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved

TeamCasey
08-11-2006, 05:42 AM
I find it striking that we don't hear what's been done to improve immigration and tracking down individuals with expired work visas, etc.

creek14
08-11-2006, 07:42 AM
Are you kidding?

God, these security measures are draconian.

Ummmm, two of the suspects were women. One with a six month old baby and the other pregnant.

savafan
08-11-2006, 09:24 AM
Ummmm, two of the suspects were women. One with a six month old baby and the other pregnant.

And why not? Man, I wish I could go back to not living in fear anymore...

GAC
08-11-2006, 09:47 AM
And why not? Man, I wish I could go back to not living in fear anymore...

I don't live in fear. I'm not gonna let these thugs achieve any form of satisfaction over my live or that of my family's. But I also understand that that is easy for me to say living here in rural central Ohio where our most valuable resource is corn and soybeans. ;)

I agree alot with what RBA and paint stated above. But the fact of the matter is that securing our borders has become such a political "hot potato" that neither political party wants to touch simply for the sake of alienating a voting block. Fighting terrorists, and getting results such as these, is what wins the people's hearts, minds, and confidence..... not going after an illegal who is possibly working down the street from you on a construction job for $5/hr or picking fruit.

Completely different and opposing types of threats. One is life threatening.

And if they re-instate the funding to large metro areas such as NYC and Boston (which I agree), what are those monies gonna be invested in? More personnel/police, who are utilized to do individual searches in these high traffic areas? Isn't that what some people/organizations are complaining about - a civil rights violation. Because that is still the most effective way IMO.

We still do not have, nor perfected, the technology that would provide with 100% surveilance. And it only takes on instance to create a very tragic situation.

As long as they educate the people on these threat levels and what they stand for and stipulate - and it is something we are gonna have to get use to as a normal part of or "inconvenience" in our lives to those that fly - then what is the big deal if I know ahead of time those list of items I know I'm not allowed to carry-on?

Some seem to act like it's a real big deal because they can't carry on their bottled water, hand lotion, or hair spritz. We Americans are at times a spoiled lot. ;)

TeamCasey
08-11-2006, 10:23 AM
9/11 terrorists were here on expired work and student visas. It's a huge part of the threat. Immigration has to find a better way to track foreigners in the U.S.

Rojo
08-11-2006, 12:40 PM
I was simply relating something that I observed in the past. Why take a shot at me (because that's the way your post came across to me)?

Yes, I see that you were relating something you had seen and I commented on it.

remdog
08-11-2006, 02:12 PM
Yes, I see that you were relating something you had seen and I commented on it.

Sure. OK. If you say so.

Rem

Falls City Beer
08-11-2006, 02:51 PM
Man, I wish I could go back to not living in fear anymore...

I don't live in fear. I'm not sure why, but I don't.

Johnny Footstool
08-11-2006, 04:19 PM
I don't live in fear. I'm not sure why, but I don't.

I'm more afraid of being hit by a drunk driver than of dying in a terrorist attack.

I play the odds.;)

creek14
08-11-2006, 04:25 PM
And why not? Man, I wish I could go back to not living in fear anymore...
Sava, I know things that would curl your hair, but I don't live in fear. Not for one second.

I'm not giving anyone that much power.

Well, maybe the Reds pitching. Now that scares the beejeebers out of me.

vaticanplum
08-11-2006, 04:39 PM
guess my hair gel's going in my carry-on...

...and this is probably for the best :p:

I had to fly internationally right after september 11 -- right after, I think it was the second day international travel was reinstated -- and although I was allowed to take my water bottle on board, security did make me drink out of it at the checkpoint. I remember that very specifically because it struck me as so weird, and then I realized why they made me do it.

I had to fly in and out of france twice over the course of the following year. The first time I was coming home for Christmas, and they made me drink out of my water bottle again at the Charles de Gaulle airport. That happened to be the exact same day that the shoe explosives guy flew out of the very same airport. Since then, I've never been asked to drink out of any container, but I usually have to take off my shoes. They switched from one potential threat to another :)

Puffy
08-11-2006, 05:25 PM
Sava, I know things that would curl your hair, but I don't live in fear. Not for one second.

I'm not giving anyone that much power.

Well, maybe the Reds pitching. Now that scares the beejeebers out of me.

You don't know things that could curl my hair.

I can only wish I had enough hair to curl.

creek14
08-11-2006, 05:29 PM
I can only wish I had enough hair to curl.
Why would you want to cover perfection?

FoReel
08-11-2006, 08:56 PM
Wow, I could think of a few ways to smuggle think on board a plane, some people say that terrorist master minds, geniuses, but i must disagree. I would put some of my ideas on this boards, but I know RedsZone is harboring terrorists.

savafan
08-11-2006, 09:57 PM
Well, between terrorism, computer hackers, and a gun fight outside the laundromat across the street from me today, there's a lot to be fearful of here...

remdog
08-12-2006, 07:49 AM
Quote: By Rojo: Your a loon

So now you resort to negging and name calling.

Classy.

Rem

Blimpie
08-12-2006, 09:49 AM
I thought the operative word in the phrase "Private Message" was the word Private?

This thread is about a thwarted international terror plot, no?