Worse than 9/11 plot to blow up UK

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:02 am

Islamic extremist guilty of liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic jets | Mail Online

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:20 am

oscar;1239195 wrote: Islamic extremist guilty of liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic jets | Mail Online

im glad they stopped it:), one 9-11 was enough, we as a whole dont need anymore of that crud:mad:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:24 am

luciferjohn;1239202 wrote: im glad they stopped it:), one 9-11 was enough, we as a whole dont need anymore of that crud:mad:
The war on terror will never end. At least I can say one thing about this country and that is that we are blessed with a craking Intelligence service that stops these fanatics.

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:31 am

oscar;1239205 wrote: The war on terror will never end. At least I can say one thing about this country and that is that we are blessed with a craking Intelligence service that stops these fanatics.

unfortunatly i know it will never be over but if we keep the 9-11 sized attacks at bay, the loss of life will be less, our dept has done ok, they have stopped a few, but it seems like since we went on the offensive, all the attacks have been at targets in our ally countries and not ours, i feel bad but in the same breath im glad my daughters dont have 9-11's everyweek.:-3

:-3

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:11 pm

luciferjohn;1239210 wrote: unfortunatly i know it will never be over but if we keep the 9-11 sized attacks at bay, the loss of life will be less, our dept has done ok, they have stopped a few, but it seems like since we went on the offensive, all the attacks have been at targets in our ally countries and not ours, i feel bad but in the same breath im glad my daughters dont have 9-11's everyweek.:-3

:-3 My apologies in advance but I always believed 9/11 was down to a complacent Bush and lax airport security. I really don't believe the UK will ever see a 9/11 due to the if anything, over the top security here.

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm

oscar;1239228 wrote: My apologies in advance but I always believed 9/11 was down to a complacent Bush and lax airport security. I really don't believe the UK will ever see a 9/11 due to the if anything, over the top security here.

no offence taken:D and i hope noone ever gets hit by a 9-11 it truely does change ones outlook on the human race. and please dont get me started bush lol:D

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:40 pm

we are blessed with a craking Intelligence service that stops these fanatics.

Yep. Mind you, we also have a Muslim community that doesn't want the fanatics any more than the rest of us. From what I've gathered, the intelligence services would be stuffed if it weren't for information received. Since they have (so far! Touch wood...) succeeded they are almost certain to be getting information from within said Muslim community.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:39 pm

luciferjohn;1239232 wrote: no offence taken:D and i hope noone ever gets hit by a 9-11 it truely does change ones outlook on the human race. and please dont get me started bush lol:D
As it is 9/11 week I am watcing a documentary as we speak with un-seen video footage of 9/11. I can almost feel their terror coming through the tv screen. :-1

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:36 pm

In what sense is blowing up transatlantic jets "worse than 9/11"?

In what sense does it involve blowing up the UK?

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:37 pm

oscar;1239195 wrote: Islamic extremist guilty of liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic jets | Mail Online

good lord..........this time they stopped it, what about next?:-5:-5

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:03 pm

good lord..........this time they stopped it, what about next?

That's the point, of course: The security services have to succeed every time, the terrorists only have to succeed once. I must admit, I expected them to have managed at least one "spectacular" by now. It's a big tick of approval for the MIs and CIs involved.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:08 pm

Clodhopper;1239297 wrote: That's the point, of course: The security services have to succeed every time, the terrorists only have to succeed once. I must admit, I expected them to have managed at least one "spectacular" by now. It's a big tick of approval for the MIs and CIs involved.
The response I hoped for and why I refrained from answering Spot's question. I put the thread on to discuss terror by Extremists and not to get into posts discussing the clarity of my title.

I admit, I also imagined a big un myself and It is down to Intelligence that we have not had one.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:43 pm

oscar;1239328 wrote: The response I hoped for and why I refrained from answering Spot's question. I put the thread on to discuss terror by Extremists and not to get into posts discussing the clarity of my title.

I admit, I also imagined a big un myself and It is down to Intelligence that we have not had one.

Yet !!!

luciferjohn · Post by **luciferjohn** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:53 pm

G#Gill;1239339 wrote: Yet !!!

i still say i hope noone else has one

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:12 pm

I wish the convicted terrorists good health...so that the murderous bastards aren't sprung from prison in seven years.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:16 am

I wish the convicted terrorists good health...so that the murderous bastards aren't sprung from prison in seven years

If one of them is dying, he probably will be before the end. They even let Ronnie Biggs out, and that didn't look likely for a long time.

And yes, I do approve of release on compassionate grounds.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:51 am

spot;1239285 wrote: In what sense is blowing up transatlantic jets "worse than 9/11"?

In what sense does it involve blowing up the UK?
Actually I will answer this question after all. Do the math Spot and there lies the answer.

The gang plotted to blow up 18 transatlantic flights.. If you have an average of 400 passengers on each flight that equals approx 3600 people if they had been successful. The death toll from 9/11 was estimated at 2,900.

To blow up the UK' stems from the fact that the suicide bombings would be on planes leaving the UK and one of the members stating that 'There will be body parts in the streets of the UK'. The effect of the planes detonating over the streets of the UK would have the same effect as the Lockerbie flight hitting Lockerbie but on a far larger scale. Doesn't take much to work out does it? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:42 am

oscar;1239523 wrote: The gang plotted to blow up 18 transatlantic flights.. If you have an average of 400 passengers on each flight that equals approx 3600 people if they had been successful.The trouble with you is your inevitable egging of the cake.

A gang of British Muslims plotted to cause carnage "on an almost unprecedented scale" by detonating up to 18 suicide bombs on transatlantic passenger flights, a court has heard [...] The alleged bombers had drawn up plans to attack seven Boeing 777, 767 and 763 aircraft, each carrying between 241 and 285 passengers and crew, operated by American Airlines, United Airlines and Air Canada

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... r-911.html

Or do you have a reference to 18 flights transatlantic somewhere?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:45 am

spot;1239536 wrote:

Or do you have a reference to 18 flights transatlantic somewhere?
Yes.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:53 am

oscar;1239537 wrote: Yes.

Come on then, cough it up.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:56 am

spot;1239540 wrote: Come on then, cough it up.
If I thought for a moment that you would not trash the sources as tabloid proganda, I would. You can google the same as I can.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:02 am

oscar;1239541 wrote: If I thought for a moment that you would not trash the sources as tabloid proganda, I would. You can google the same as I can.

Surely it comes down to the accuracy of the reports.

You've got the Telegraph article. You could, I suppose, dismiss it as inaccurate. It even names the seven flights which were discussed by the planners. The seven flights were:

14.15 United Airlines flight 931 to San Francisco

15.00 Air Canada flight 849 to Toronto

15.15 Air Canada flight 865 to Montreal

15.40 United Airlines flight 959 to Chicago

16.20 United Airlines flight 935 to Washington

16.35 American Airlines flight 131 to New York

16.50 American Airlines flight 91 to Chicago

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:31 am

spot;1239543 wrote: Surely it comes down to the accuracy of the reports.

You've got the Telegraph article. You could, I suppose, dismiss it as inaccurate. It even names the seven flights which were discussed by the planners. The seven flights were:

14.15 United Airlines flight 931 to San Francisco

15.00 Air Canada flight 849 to Toronto

15.15 Air Canada flight 865 to Montreal

15.40 United Airlines flight 959 to Chicago

16.20 United Airlines flight 935 to Washington

16.35 American Airlines flight 131 to New York

16.50 American Airlines flight 91 to Chicago So who is to say that the Telegraph is correct and the Mail, Mirror and other sources are inaccurate? It comes down to tabloid reporting.

I find it irrelevant... even if it was 2 aircraft... to explode over London or any large city would be catastrophic.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:53 am

oscar;1239548 wrote: So who is to say that the Telegraph is correct and the Mail, Mirror and other sources are inaccurate? It comes down to tabloid reporting.You'd assist us all if you linked to the relevant articles. I've played this game before, it's always "no that's not the one I meant". Showing a source on request is a basic courtesy.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:31 pm

spot;1239557 wrote: You'd assist us all if you linked to the relevant articles. I've played this game before, it's always "no that's not the one I meant". Showing a source on request is a basic courtesy.

Islamization Watch: Three guilty of plotting biggest ever airline bombing

One of many stating as many as 18 suicide bombers.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:44 pm

oscar;1239569 wrote: Islamization Watch: Three guilty of plotting biggest ever airline bombing

One of many stating as many as 18 suicide bombers.

Security sources believe the men were considering an even larger attack after they were bugged discussing different terminals and as many as 18 suicide bombers, which could have led to 5,000 deaths in the air and as many again on the ground.

Police feared there could be a second wave of attacks after hearing Ali talk of â€œpeople coming the same time as usâ€ and intercepting coded emails.

That's the right bit, is it?

And what did the the Mail and the Mirror make out of that belief and fear, neither of which formed part of the court case?