UK terror plot aborted

Jeremy · August 10, 2006

UK foils aircraft terror plot
Thursday, August 10, 2006; Posted: 3:46 a.m. EDT (07:46 GMT)

LONDON (CNN) -- Major delays are expected at all UK airports after the nation's threat level was raised to "critical" Thursday when police disrupted an apparent plot to blow up planes in mid-flight.

The highest possible alert level, raised by the British Home Office, means "an attack is expected imminently," and authorities have said no hand luggage would be allowed onto planes.

London's Metropolitan Police said a months-long intelligence operation by the anti-terrorist branch and security service resulted in several arrests overnight, according to a Scotland Yard news release.

The aim of the alleged plot was to explode devices carried aboard planes in handheld luggage -- especially on flights from Britain to the United States, according to Scotland Yard.

"This is a major operation which inevitably will be lengthy and complex," Scotland Yard said in a statement.

Britain's Home Secretary John Reid called the alleged plot significant and said it was designed to "bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life."

"We are doing everything possible to disrupt any further terrorist activity. This will mean major disruption at all UK airports," Reid said, adding the move to raise the alert level was "precautionary."

Hand luggage will not be allowed into the cabin of a plane and passengers will only be allowed to take a wallet, travel documents and other essential items in a plastic bag.

"All passengers must be hand searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must be X-ray screened," a BAA statement added.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/10...rror/index.html

scribblet · August 10, 2006

This is a good blog and reply, he says it better than I could.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

The religion of peace

The news coming in of the plot to blow up UK flights in mid-air is devastating. This is a salutary and important reminder that the "war on terror" is not a figment of the imagination of the Bush-Blair axis but a reality. Congratulations to the police and security services for intercepting the terrorists.

Despite the bleating of the BBC, the news agencies and their fellow travellers, there are some evil bastards out there and they aim to kill US – that is you and me, men women and children, without discrimination and without a shred of remorse.

Apparently, as many as ten British Airway flights from the UK to the United States had been targeted and the chilling thing is that liquid chemical explosives were to be used, defying normal airport security measures.

The plan was, we are told, was to blow the aircraft up over deep water so that there would be no wreckage or evidence, creating maximum fear, uncertainty and confusion, with the aim of bringing the air transportation system to a complete halt.

This is your enemy people, and he lives in our midst. But he takes his solace, his funding and justification from events in Iraq, in Palestine and in southern Lebanon. These are the people, members of the "religion of peace", who regard death as a commodity, to be exploited, people who have no morals, no scruples and no mercy. And there is only one thing you can do with people like this – you root them out and, where necessary, kill them.

BubberMiley · August 10, 2006

And there is only one thing you can do with people like this – you root them out and, where necessary, kill them.

I think there hasn't been much dispute about that in the last five years. The only question is whether, in the process of killing them, we should bomb whole neighbourhoods and kill more children than terrorists.

cybercoma · August 10, 2006

The one thing I absolutely hate about all this going on is the people who use the wars against terrorism as an excuse to go out and murder innocent people.

cybercoma · August 10, 2006

And there is only one thing you can do with people like this – you root them out and, where necessary, kill them.

I think there hasn't been much dispute about that in the last five years. The only question is whether, in the process of killing them, we should bomb whole neighbourhoods and kill more children than terrorists.

Would you suggest we send ground forces in without an air campaign first?

Wilber · August 10, 2006

I think there hasn't been much dispute about that in the last five years. The only question is whether, in the process of killing them, we should bomb whole neighbourhoods and kill more children than terrorists.

As opposed to people who just kill innocent people in order to kill innocent people.

jdobbin · August 10, 2006

Thanks goodness they were able to stop this in time. I hope further details will come out as to the who and why of this.

BubberMiley · August 10, 2006

As opposed to people who just kill innocent people in order to kill innocent people.

What's your point? That terrorists don't care about innocent people so why should we? My point is that killing innocents probably creates more terrorists than it destroys. I think the best method of killing them would be to infiltrate, isolate, and eliminate. One bullet, strategically used, can do more good than a guided missile taking out a city block.

Leafless · August 10, 2006

And there is only one thing you can do with people like this – you root them out and, where necessary, kill them.

I think there hasn't been much dispute about that in the last five years. The only question is whether, in the process of killing them, we should bomb whole neighbourhoods and kill more children than terrorists.

Would you suggest we send ground forces in without an air campaign first?

This is not a normal war.

The Hezbollah in Lebanon is the only single large military organized terrorist operation.

What we are up against is not a normal war invoving coutries throughout the world.

I don't know of any way to control world wide diabolic guerrilla warfare outside of destroying the source.

Black Dog · August 10, 2006

This is not a normal war.
The Hezbollah in Lebanon is the only single large military organized terrorist operation.

They are also a regional one. No sense conflating the Shiite Hizbullah with the global, militant ideology of, say, Al Qaeda.

And there is only one thing you can do with people like this – you root them out and, where necessary, kill them.

Thank goodness law enforcement has been doing exactly that. Now, what you don't do is invade a country with no connnection to global terrorism movements in some quixotic bid to bring democracy by force of arms (if indeed that was the real goal). Ooops.

IOW the biggest blunder the west made was declaring a war we don't have the tools to fight. The best way to target terrorist plots is law enforcement and intellignece techniques, not billion dollar bombers. Of course the last time anyone of prominence suggested that, they were mocked for it.

"Kerry said, and I quote, 'The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.' (Audience boos.) I disagree. I disagree….. After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America — and war is what they got."-George W. Bush, August 20, 2004

How are you liking your war?

Shady · August 10, 2006

For everyone's information and amusement, the kook-left's take on this subject, is that the plot was a Bush/Rove plot to raise Bush's poll numbers. :blink:

I wish I was joking.

Wilber · August 10, 2006

What's your point? That terrorists don't care about innocent people so why should we? My point is that killing innocents probably creates more terrorists than it destroys. I think the best method of killing them would be to infiltrate, isolate, and eliminate. One bullet, strategically used, can do more good than a guided missile taking out a city block.

You believe that if it was possible to use one bullet strategically placed, we would chose to bomb children instead? Too expensive.

jdobbin · August 10, 2006

Here we go again with security. At airports across Canada, no liquids brought on board. Formula and juice are exceptions except that you have to drink them before boarding to prove they are not a bomb. Mmm, nice cup of breast milk! Gel and liquid prescriptions are holding up entire flights and when in doubt, the person either has to leave the medicine or get off the plane.

Airline stocks are plummeting and some airports are indicating lighter traffic today as some flights are cancelled or are facing long delays.

Hopefully, they will provide some new information soon on this case. They are as unprepared for this as they were with the shoe examinations when all shoes had to come off (and still do in many airports).

Riverwind · August 10, 2006

Here we go again with security. At airports across Canada, no liquids brought on board. Formula and juice are exceptions except that you have to drink them before boarding to prove they are not a bomb. Mmm, nice cup of breast milk! Gel and liquid prescriptions are holding up entire flights and when in doubt, the person either has to leave the medicine or get off the plane.

We are talking about suicide bombers. What is stopping a suicide bomber from swallowing a condom full of explosive that they vomit up in the plane. Drug smugglers have used similar tactics. These precautions are pointless - they simply make travelling by air more unpleasant that it already is without increasing safety one bit.

Charles Anthony · August 10, 2006

Airline stocks are plummeting and some airports are indicating lighter traffic today as some flights are cancelled or are facing long delays.

One thing that we will see to "resolve" this issue is basic market forces increasing the prices of passenger flying.

Forget about the increase in security for now and just look at the pricing mechanism in the airline industry. They over-book. They have to over-book because people tend to cancel last-minute and the airplane flies with empty seats which would otherwise be filled. Unfortunately, this is the way they must operate to stay competitive. However, it is the over-booking that adds time and frustration.

Gradually, prices will rise and it will be more expensive for people to cancel their flights at the last minute. As a result, the need to over-book will decrease. Eventually, there will be less people-who-do-not-know-how-to-pack-luggage going through airports. The transition will be rocky and it will not likely be fast but it will happen.

jdobbin · August 10, 2006

We are talking about suicide bombers. What is stopping a suicide bomber from swallowing a condom full of explosive that they vomit up in the plane. Drug smugglers have used similar tactics. These precautions are pointless - they simply make travelling by air more unpleasant that it already is without increasing safety one bit.

I am waiting for Naked Air! <heh> Prudish extremist wouldn't dare attack or risk seeing something that might not get them into paradise.

GostHacked · August 10, 2006

I think it is rediculous to ban all these liquids. Bottles water, juice, even toiletries. Come on. The plot was thwarted, because someone did their damn job. That should not all of a sudden be a reason to put a ban on bringing liquids and gels onboar.

This is gonna result in a huge buying spree for said products they left behind when they get to the destination. This takes money out of the average persons pocket as well.

Well the plot was avoided, good job.

jdobbin · August 10, 2006

I think it is rediculous to ban all these liquids. Bottles water, juice, even toiletries. Come on. The plot was thwarted, because someone did their damn job. That should not all of a sudden be a reason to put a ban on bringing liquids and gels onboar.

Don't forget toothpaste. They are even removing it from crew staff.

jdobbin · August 10, 2006

Economy could be damaged by threat of attack?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14288415/

Wilber · August 10, 2006

I think it is rediculous to ban all these liquids. Bottles water, juice, even toiletries. Come on. The plot was thwarted, because someone did their damn job. That should not all of a sudden be a reason to put a ban on bringing liquids and gels onboar.

Don't forget toothpaste. They are even removing it from crew staff.

Another insanity. Many airlines do not allow their crews to check baggage. A six day trip without toothpaste or shaving cream, or are they expected to buy new stuff at each layover and throw it away the next day. It's tough to have confidence in the morons who come up with this stuff. Too bad they consider crews to be a problem instead of part of the solution. I retired just in time.

jdobbin · August 10, 2006

Another insanity. Many airlines do not allow their crews to check baggage. A six day trip without toothpaste or shaving cream, or are they expected to buy new stuff at each layover and throw it away the next day. It's tough to have confidence in the morons who come up with this stuff. Too bad they consider crews to be a problem instead of part of the solution. I retired just in time.

<heh> After an overseas trip, the Captain and co-pilot will look like al Qaeda anyways. No mousse either or hairspray. The airline flight attendents will have icky hair.

Charles Anthony · August 10, 2006

I think it is rediculous to ban all these liquids. Bottles water, juice, even toiletries. Come on. The plot was thwarted, because someone did their damn job. That should not all of a sudden be a reason to put a ban on bringing liquids and gels onboar.

Maybe "their job" involved examining every single ridiculous container.

I think they should ban every stupid container.

If their were two airlines:

Airline 1: bans all stupid containers (idiot packrat-travellers not accepted)

Airline 2: permits all of the stupid containers but makes everybody wait to have all of their stupid containers inspected

I would buy my tickets from the Airline 1, thank you very much! and have a safe flight home.

Why do people need their own bottled water or their own juice?? They serve you on the plane!

Black Dog · August 10, 2006

Seems like the people responsible for developing security measures are always responding to the last threat. They are reactive. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that liquid explosives are potential hazards. Or maybe it does.

jdobbin · August 10, 2006

Why do people need their own bottled water or their own juice?? They serve you on the plane!

Most discount flights now in the States have made it policy that you can bring your own meals aboard.

And then we still get into cabin crews having their toothpaste and mouthwash taken away. They don't have cargo luggage.

I'd rather not have a fight attendant with muskrat breath.

Riverwind · August 10, 2006

Seems like the people responsible for developing security measures are always responding to the last threat. They are reactive. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that liquid explosives are potential hazards. Or maybe it does.

Security measures are always a question of cost vs. benefit. They could ensure even more security if everyone was required to strip and don airport issued orange jumpsuits. However, the hassles of doing that far out weigh the benefits. Mindlessing banning of all liquids on flights sounds like an over reaction.