home

Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:45:47 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

According to this Raw Story piece, terrorists really can't mix chemicals together on board an airplane to blow it up. Homeland Security, take note. Can we please start bringing our toothpaste, concealer, and bottled water with us again when we fly?

< Swift Boating Baron Hill | Independent Candidates Will Have Easier Ballot Access in Illinois >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat | 24 comments (24 topical)
    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:03:54 AM EST
    Isn't Raw Story the place that had Rove being indicted at least 10 times? Assumung the "expert" quoted knows what he is talking about, and in that regard remembering how you spell "ass u me," can we say that the attempt may have been futile on the terrorists part, but in fact an attempt was made? I think that planning an attempt to blow up ten airliners and killing thousands of people is a big time no-no and should result in a 50 year prison sentence. So why all the BS by Raw Story and the unknown author? The ability and or inability to actually do what was planned will undoubtedly come out at the trial, but why the criticism? Why the attempt to confuse the issue, which is really radical Moslems trying to kill infidels.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    as usual ppj twists things around to fit his agenda of all out war on the ME. No the real purpose of this post and article was to show once again that the threat has been overhyped. Why are they raising the fear level for threats that can't be carried out. On a practical level this is a "Boy cried wolf" item. The more of this crap that gets debunked the less likely people will pay attention to real threats. I posted a link in a thread a couple of weeks ago detailing why this chemical threat was not tenable. So this is old news. So once again they get caught hyping a threat that doesn't exist. But as most of us know there is no war on terror, that ended with "mission Accomplshed" in Afghanistan. The follow on was simply an imperialistic war for power, justified by transparently weak argumnets about the immediacy of terrorist attacks. If the WOT is so real why, 5 years later, have the stockpiles for anthranx vaccine increased significantly see today's NYT

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#6)
    by soccerdad on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    should read "not increased significantly"

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:47:48 AM EST
    Jim,
    I think that planning an attempt to blow up ten airliners and killing thousands of people is a big time no-no and should result in a 50 year prison sentence.
    Agreed, though I reserve the right to quibble over the sentence. But should it -- still assuming "it" really was scientifically untenable -- result in banning an entire phase of matter from flights?
    The ability and or inability to actually do what was planned will undoubtedly come out at the trial, but why the criticism?
    Heaven forfend we stop being afraid of water bottles before November. Seriously, if liquids are safe to bring aboard, it would be good to know about it sooner rather than later so we can cut the useless security rules. US airlines carry over 2 million people per day. If they're spending as little as a minute each dealing with the additional rules, that's multiple man years per day. Time that could be spent working, playing with the kids, napping, whatever. If there's no benefit, let's stop paying such a high cost.
    Why the attempt to confuse the issue, which is really radical Moslems trying to kill infidels.
    When those radical Moslems are bumbling doofuses who try to kill infidels with imaginary chemistry, how does that confuse the issue? Seems like useful information to me. Seems like we should want to know how our enemy operates, what their capabilities are. That's clarifying the issue, not confusing it. If it clarifies the issue in a way that makes us less afraid to fly and less willing to embrace security restrictions, why's that a bad thing?

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#2)
    by aw on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    In the last month, they took my 90-year old mother's makeup away. They took my cousin's lipstick away in the UK, while overlooking a box of matches in my bag but scrutinizing my contact lenses. In Norway, they handed my lighter back to me and said I could keep it. It's all BS.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#3)
    by Punchy on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    Hey TChris, welcome aboard. I've been saying this for a month now. I'm a chemist, and many of us are stunned at the US gov'ts response. If I rolled a keg of peroxide, and 2 gallons of acetone, plus acid...etc...THEN I may have a bomb. But to ban lipstick, lip-gloss, mascara, bubble-gum, and deoderant is SO beyond the ludicrous that it must be purposeful scare-mongering. Look--you can have gel-padded bras, but not gel-inserts in shoes. Completely illogical to ban one without the other. Now tell me...are they REALLY for safety, or not?

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    The purpose of the propaganda was never to describe a realistic threat. The only real terrorists in this were the British and American governments crying wolf again with their usual fearmongering. Bushco and the rethuglickers picked up on it and tried to milk it for all the political capital they could make out of it because they've got nothing else to offer. Because they're politically and morally bankrupt. Because they're only capable of playing to the lowest common denominator in anything they try to do. Because they're pandering to the basest grunting limbic reptilian fears of the most uneducated segments of society. Because they're finished unless they can terrorize.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#8)
    by roxtar on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    Presumably, the same technology would be equally effective for robbing banks, but we're not subjected to a strip search every time we make a deposit into our Christmas Club.....yet.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    roy - If the story's aim was to show that their science was bad, fine. But the title of it is:
    Sources: August terror plot is a 'fiction' underscoring police failures
    The story is a defacto defense of the terrorists. I mean who cares if it wouldn't have worked? The intent is what counts. If you keep giving them three shots, sooner or later they will score. This all falls back to the Demo/Left's position that nothing can be done until the terrorists kill someone. Then we can hunt them down.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    hmmmm... actually it is "free shots..." baseball overload, I guess.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    A logical extension of the thinking that would ban toothpaste, hair gel, bottled water, or any other of a million liquid consumer products is to ban school, ban learning chemistry, or even to ban an education in general, or just try to do away with thinking and reasoning skills (something the fear sellers have already done to themselves, btw). For anyone who supports this kind of stupidity, take your pick... but tell us... where does that line of (non) thinking stop? Perhaps people should be banned because they might someday figure out a way to kill someone? This has absolutely nothing to do with these banned liquids. It is pure and simple fearmongering. In other words, it is terrorism, perpetrated by the bush administration, and dutifully repeated by the sheep. It is also insulting to the intelligence of Americans, and people around the world. Do you really want a president or a government that has so little respect for you? Idiocy. The world is a dangerous place. So? Life is terminal. So? No one here gets out of it alive. Live it free or live it cowering and hating and hiding under the bed pissing yourself. Your choice. But if you are going to cower, then save your strength for cowering. Don't waste it trying to terrorize people who can see through the crap.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:14:53 PM EST
    after they murder, we can focus on them like laser beams. kind of like the moronic Republican from New Mexico who suggested we can use wiretapping but only after successful attacks. such an intellect must be preserved.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:55:47 PM EST
    can we say that the attempt may have been futile on the terrorists part, but in fact an attempt was made
    No, we can't. If they believed in the binary liquid explosives plot they would never have had people empty the liquids into a common container. Besides, heard anything lately about it? I've seaarched the news, googled it and nothing. Seems like if they had found explosives in their searches or any proof of the charges we'd have heard by now. Isn't it past time where they could keep them w/o charges? How many are still in custody? Anyone else heard anything? jimmy wets his bed when brown people buy cell phones, and we all saw how that turned out. He brings up FDR enough that you'd a thought he'd learned that "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:23:42 PM EST
    Yousef already exploded a bomb on a plane in 1996 with nitroglycerin smuggled in contact lens solution and detonated with a Casio digital watch and batteries smuggled in his shoes. Hamas was caught in France in the eighties doing the same thing with liquor bottles. The real question is why did it take revealing the bomb plot a third time before common sense said check liquids in carry-ons. You can print as many articles you want about what combination of chemicals will not blow up a plane. The fact is, it has already been done. I fly every week for work. I still bring everything I did before - check your luggage. Carrying all your luggage on the plane is a luxury, not a right. The cargo space below the airplane is for luggage. Airplanes used not have that much overhead and you had to check everything anyway. Theorizing about liquid combinations and complaining about the luxury of carry-ons is not going to stop a terrorist from exploding liquid explosives.... agian.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:37:06 PM EST
    Just for the Anonymous "Little Bozo Who Cried Wolf": Let's Fly Naked and End the Reign of Terror for Political Gain
    The Bush administration and the Republican cabal behind them have done more damage to this country in 5 years than the average American can grasp -- it's time for the rest of nation still asleep to wake up and smell the coffee. We're not any safer, the fear-mongers have failed us over and over again. It's time to change direction, it's time to vote the liars and the fear-mongers out of office and put some real leaders in charge. It's time to end the reign of Terror for political gain. Flying naked may not be the answer to solving the travel woes thrust upon us by these political opportunists, but every time I fly, I tell the security guards at the airports about my theory and they laugh and tell me it would sure make their jobs a whole lot easier and more interesting.
    ---edger

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:10:51 PM EST
    Sailor - As I have carefully pointed out, the issue isn't if they could have created an explosion, but that they plotted and tried. That dear boy is called attempted murder, and except for the exemption that you want to give these lovely people, is generally considered to be criminal in and off itself. As I said, the claims that it wouldn't have worked is a strawman to detract from that fact. That you support the effort to do so was a foregone conlusion that didn't require further proof, but thanks anyway. Now go scurry off and practice your ankle biting technique, dear boy, because it is not working. Ta! Ta!

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#17)
    by roy on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:29:47 PM EST
    Jim, Where do you get your info that they "tried"? I read that they were arrested before they tried, which I'm glad of, but that's called "conspiracy" and not "attempted murder".

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:11:22 PM EST
    Sailor - As I have carefully pointed out, the issue isn't if they could have created an explosion, but that they plotted and tried.
    Really!? What do you base that on?

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:28:08 PM EST
    Yousef already exploded a bomb on a plane in 1996 with nitroglycerin smuggled in contact lens solution and detonated with a Casio digital watch and batteries smuggled in his shoes. Hamas was caught in France in the eighties doing the same thing with liquor bottles.
    Got links?

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    roy - Okay, they were trying. roy, if you want to claim the terrorists that were arrested were not trying to blow up the airliners and kill infidels, then have the courage to say you think they should be set free. All this nonsense about them not being able to do it, attempted versus conspriacy doesn't become your reputation as a stand up guy. edger - O'Reilly's point was clearly understood by anyone who DOESN'T want to NOT understand it. But, as usual, you're on the edge. Sailor - You tickle me. You yell "got links" when you know the information is correct. Now we all know that you're trying to muddy the water, I just can't figure your motivation. Anyway, dear boy, here is the Link
    Yousef assembled a bomb in the lavatory and stuck it under Seat 26K on the right-hand side of the fuselage, setting the timer to explode the device four hours later. He and 25 other passengers left the plane at Cebu. .....The explosive used was liquid nitroglycerin, which was disguised as a bottle of contact lens fluid. The wires he used were hidden in the heel of his shoe. At that time, metal detectors used in airports did not go down far enough to detect anything there. Two hours before arrival at Tokyo, the bomb exploded at 11:43 P.M. while Flight 434 was 31,000 feet above Minami Daito Island, which is located nearby Okinawa and is 260 miles (420 km) southwest of Tokyo. The explosion tore out a two square foot (0.2 mĀ²) portion of the cabin floor and ripped the body of 24-year old Haruki Ikegami, a Japanese businessman occupying the seat, in half. He was an industrial sewing machine maker returning from a trip to Cebu. Flight attendants placed a blanket where he was seated. Ikegami did not survive. The bomb blew a hole into the floor revealing the cargo hold underneath. The fuselage of the plane stayed intact.
    I do hope the above answers your questions. Ta Ta

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#23)
    by roy on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 04:13:31 PM EST
    Jim,
    ... if you want to claim the terrorists that were arrested were not trying to blow up the airliners and kill infidels, then have the courage to say you think they should be set free.
    For the record, because I lose sleep at night worrying that there are people in the world who take people like you seriously: I agree that conspiring to kill people is a very bad thing to do and ought to be punished severely. How do you get "they should be set free" from "that's called `conspiracy'"? Nice straw man anyway. Right up there with asserting that others believe "that nothing can be done until the terrorists kill someone".
    All this nonsense about them not being able to do it, attempted versus conspiracy doesn't become your reputation as a stand up guy.
    I've already explained why I think it's useful to consider whether they could have succeded as planned. If you aren't interested in the issues I brought up, I understand, but they still seem pretty sensical to me. As for attempted versus conspiracy, you're the one who asserted that the conspirators' actions constitute "attempted murder", which is plainly false. If it's important enough for you to say, why isn't it important enough to have corrected? That's not a rhetorical question. As for reputations, given your demonstrated tendency to jump to insulting conclusions when others disagree with you, I wouldn't trust your ability to distinguish between a stand-up guy and a rotten cantaloupe.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 05:34:42 PM EST
    A quick Google on Nigel Wylde reveals that he's been in trouble with the Queen on several occasions. Of course his trial under the Official Secrets Act collapsed, so he's probably got no axe to grind. ::winky winky::

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 06:47:45 PM EST
    "As for reputations, given your demonstrated tendency to jump to insulting conclusions when others disagree with you, I wouldn't trust your ability to distinguish between a stand-up guy and a rotten cantaloupe." Roy, He knows the difference. It is just that he will take the rotten cantaloupe in the White House over a stand-up guy anytime.

    Re: Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    I just want to say that I am appalled that Bush's approval rating went up with the anniversary of 9-11. I appreciate the magnitude of 9-11 as a single horrific event, however people need to wake up and realize that you have a better chance of dying by accidental fall in the shower than you do of being killed in a terrorist attack. You or much more likely to die driving to work than you are by an extremist idiot with nothing better to do than blow something up. So, I think everyone needs to lighten up on the fear... it is the equivalent of a small child that is afraid of the dark. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take measures to keep our country safe. I'm simply saying that we need to redirect our focus to more important issues within our borders. Please wake up and stop letting Bush destroy our country and its standing in world opinion. We can not bully the world any longer without it pushing back.

    Debunking the Latest Terrorist Threat | 24 comments (24 topical)