So were we lied to about liquid explosives or not?

[scott_forester]

Yes - that was what was put out at the time . What the media get told at the time is not the same as evidence presented in court.

Think about why they might not have wanted to advertise exactly what the men were planning, what the bombs were made of, how they were assembled.

As I remember it the media were suggesting some sort of cocktail bomb that mixed when they got on board at the time. Looks like what they were actually planning to do was getting the ready made stuff on board.

 

[Jonti]

I would guess that they would be guilty of conspiring to create whatever the worst that may have happened could have been.

That would be a rational view. Unfortunately, thought-crime is now with us.

Hare-brained fantasies can be prosecuted as if they are the Real Thing, and writing poetry can be a criminal offence. These innovations have been introduced by those guardians of liberty, the war-mongering shower currently in power.

All the same, from the perspective of defending freedom against testerical twits wanting to wage The War Against Terror (against their own paranoid projections, mostly) it is important to keep the distinction clearly in mind.

The violent fantasies of clueless clowns are of little practical consequence. That there are sinister dynamics at play that would use those fantasies as reason to extend state surveillance, relax the laws of evidence and justify lengthy detention without trial is of great concern.

 

[scott_forester]

Hare-brained fantasies can be prosecuted as if they are the Real Thing, and writing poetry can be a criminal offence. These innovations have been introduced by those guardians of liberty, the war-mongering shower currently in power.

I actually felt sorry for this women at the time, however, when I found out that when asked on a website what security was like at Heathrow by Sohail Qureshi, a man who had attended terrorist training camps and is convicted of terrorism offences, that she had started to offer up advice I kinda lost any sympathy for her.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7176832.stm

 

[john x]

What the media get told at the time is not the same as evidence presented in court.

So we were lied to about liquid explosives!

john x

 

[WouldBe]

So we were lied to about liquid explosives!

john x

No, we were lied to about the method of production of liquid explosives.

 

[laptop]

we were told that the reason for this was because a plot had been uncovered to smuggle 'harmless' chemicals on-board and then assemble them into some form of viable bomb.

I think that was a case of journalists misunderstanding some gnomic comments by the police or other security bods.

Nothing I saw in direct quotes at the time was incompatible with the notion that "assembly" meant nothing more than bringing together something explosive and a detonator.


Almost all journalists are the kind of people who fell asleep in chemistry classes


Security bods may well take advantage of this to encourage journalists to make up shit that suits them, without needing to lie

 

[Kizmet]

there are sinister dynamics at play that would use those fantasies as reason to extend state surveillance

Oh Jonti. You never quite grew out of seeing monsters under the bed, did you?

Only now you like to call them 'sinister dynamics'.

This isn't cub-camp.. and we're not all sitting round a campfire telling ghost stories.

You're an adult now.. it's not good enough to wiggle your stumpy fingers and mutter stuff about 'them', 'they'.. and sinister, dark evil forces with twisted hands and eyes of fire!

You have to say what you mean.. who you're referring to.. and why.

Otherwise it's just bollocks.

 

[Jonti]

My dictionary defines "to lie" as "to intentionally deceive".

This covers the case where security bods take advantage of ignorant journalists to encourage them to make up alarmist shit.

We've been systematically lied to about "real and present" dangers for some years now.

 

[detective-boy]

Unfortunately, thought-crime is now with us.

Hare-brained fantasies can be prosecuted as if they are the Real Thing ...

As is ill-informed pontification ...

"Hare-brained fantasies" are NOT conspiracies. Conspiracies are agreements to pursue a course of conduct which would lead to the commission of a criminal offence.

"Agreements", "pursue", "course of conduct" ... NOT "fantasies".

 

[Jonti]

Ahh, you've dropped the foul-mouthed and testerical posturings, at least for a while. That's good. Not that I care if you discredit yourself in that way, you understand

Anyway, if this were the case ...

Conspiracies are agreements to pursue a course of conduct which would lead to the commission of a criminal offence.

... then just thinking about terrorism would not, could not, now be illegal.

But it is.

 

[Jonti]

Going back to the matter of using paid witnesses to frighten juries in an attempt to obtain terrorism convictions, here's an interesting write-up about The War on Terror's professional witness ...

The recent conviction of Mohammed Atif Siddique on terror charges highlighted the role of globetrotting professional witness Evan Kohlmann. Defenders in the US and UK have come to recognize him as a figure brought in to furnish opinions which are only of use to prosecutions in the frightening of juries. Kohlmann was also tapped by New Scotland Yard and the Crown in the well known case which resulted in the recent conviction of al-Qaeda's super-cyber 007, Younis Tsouli.

 

[detective-boy]

But it is

No.

It isn't.

There are specific offences which are getting close. But (a) they are not conspiracies - they are specific offences and (b) they are all more than thinking about terrorism.

If you want anyway to take you seriously you should consider relying on something other than The Register for your Law Reports ...

 

[detective-boy]

Ahh, you've dropped the foul-mouthed and testerical posturings, at least for a while. That's good. Not that I care if you discredit yourself in that way, you understand

Oh fuck off, you pompous prick.