Brit trio convicted for liquid bomb terror plot
Conspiracy to commit murder - not bomb planes
Three of eight British men accused of plotting to blow up seven trans-Atlantic airliners using liquid explosives were convicted today of conspiracy to commit murder.
The jury, however, didn't find any of the men guilty of the actual headline-grabbing charges that lead to a worldwide clamp-down on liquids in carry-on baggage.
Guilty verdicts were returned Monday against Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27; Assad Sarwar, 28; and Tanvir Hussain, 27 of conspiracy to commit murder.
Ali, Sarwar, and Hussain admitted to plotting to detonate an explosive device at Heathrow's terminal three because it was used by several US airlines, according to The Guardian.
The jury didn't reach verdicts against any of the eight men on the plane-bombing charges. No verdicts were reached against the other four men accused of the plot: Umar Islam, 30; Arafat Waheed Khan 26; Ibrahim Savant, 27; and Waheed Zaman, 24.
Mohammad Gulzar, 27, who Scotland Yard accused of being a ringleader in the plot, was cleared of all offenses.
During the lengthy trial, prosecutors claimed the men planned to detonate explosives consisting of a chemical mixture inside 500ml Lucozade and Oasis bottles. Authorities claim if the plot was successful, more than 1,500 people would have been killed.
The Crown Prosecution Service said in a statement, "The prosecution is considering a request for retrial in respect of the plot to blow up airliners against all seven men upon which the jury could not agree."
The judge set a December 26 deadline for a retrial decision. ®
You are a Troll because of the coblers that you have spouted some of which you admit was "flame bait" and when you said "from the beginning my argument has always been about what I believe is a disproportionate response that has done little more than feed our fears." it must have been in your head alone, because you certainly didn't even hint as this until your trolling "flame bait" was responded to, the most telling post is when you refer to people as "Credulous Twits" (hmm.. they were right, you were wrong, ahem), unless you were still "half-cut" at 10:57 in the morning you're not allowed to use the "ill-advised" excuse (besides who ill advised you? do you have voices in your head?).
At the end of the day, your initial posts were just plain wrong, rather than admit it you'll pretend that you were trying to make a point about personal liberty, I personally believe that argument is weak (you have offered no better solutions, even when specifically asked), there may be a point to make but you have spewed so much chaff with the wheat nobody is listening, you're probably not thick, you just look that way because you're stubborn, oh and apologising for something you wrote in the same paragraph means either you don't mean it or you don't know how to use the delete key.
Am I a Troll for taunting you? maybe, but I did add the disclaimer "Please post again so I can taunt you some more" and you did......
You have two choices;
1. Shush, people will forget about you (I sugest you change your name)
2. Post something else, you'll only make yourself look stupider which will make people smile, go on I dare you to fall into my "taunting you more trap" bwahhahaha!
3. Admit that you were wrong, apologise to the "Credulous Twits" then maybe people will listen to you (but it's probably too late).
I know I said two choices, but I think we both know you won't let it lie (because you're stubborn).
The evolution of the terrorist
"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You have to be lucky always"
PIRA statement to Thatcher government after the Brighton bomb, 1984.
Air travel is pretty safe up until the plane hits the ground too hard. If it crashes in a city the death toll is likely to be very high. That is why 'hitting' a plane is an attractive (spectacular) proposition for a terrorist.
Yes the above quote was from the Provisional IRA but the point is made that terrorists, particularly those who have no regard for their own life are very hard to counter. Someone with a device/mixture designed to explode which doesn't expolde is still a terrorist.
Intent is a difficult thing to determine. Yes we built bombs, we tested them. We were happy we could get them to go bang when we wanted them to. We thought about disguising them to get them onto planes but then we decided we'd just set them off in the terminals. That would teach the infidels because of the disruption we would cause. Mmmmm.
Who is going to decide that it is no longer a risk to have liquids/bottles on a plane? I think it will be after 'they' have worked out a new method to cause disruption/death etc. So far we've had exploding shoes? What a load of cobblers (deliberate punnage). Exploding liquids? I find that hard to swallow (!) Anything is possible in this day and age, just look at some of the previous comments here "oh my laptop battery and blah blah blah", "you should mix......".
Where will it all end?
That's honestly the first time I've ever been called a troll (\me makes a note of the date and time). It's also the first time I've ever been called a teacher, but what exactly do you mean by that? C'mon, let's see your true colours. Seems to me you're the one posting inflammatory messages so by anybody's definition you're the troll. And no, I don't consider my original comment to be inflammatory, just ill-advised.