PDA

View Full Version : 2006 "alleged" Heathrow Liquid Bombers


K.Whyjelly
2nd Jun 2008, 17:34
Well, according to the BBC, the alleged terrorists now having their case heard at Woolwich Crown Court never intended to attack any aircraft!!! It was all just an anti war stunt according to the ringleader and they "only" planned to attack the Houses of Parliament..........that's Ok then isn't it???? :ugh:

The suicide video was going to go on You Tube and highlight the anti war stance the group held.

The truth will eventually come out in court (I hope), but if it is true then can I say that thanks to what may just have been a cunning stunt my life has been made, and will no doubt continue to be, a nightmare of security checks and pat downs :bored:




http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44550000/jpg/_44550139_ali_mugshot226.jpg Abdulla Ahmed Ali says working with refugees left him traumatised

A man accused of leading an airline bomb plot wanted to set off a device in Parliament as a stunt, he told a jury.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27, said he and two others had wanted to protest against UK foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan but no-one was intended to be hurt.
He also told Woolwich Crown Court a "martyrdom video" in which he spoke of teaching the West "a lesson" was "propaganda" he planned to post online.
He is one of eight men who deny a plot to blow up passenger planes in 2006.
He said homemade "suicide videos" made by himself and fellow defendants would have been combined with "graphic and shocking" internet footage to make a documentary with the aim of swaying public opinion on Britain's foreign policy.
The Westminster blast would have drummed up publicity for the documentary, which he planned to post on the YouTube website, he said.


Excerpt from Abdullah Ahmed Ali's video

He said he had come up with the idea after discussions with co-defendant Assad Sarwar, with whom he had travelled to Pakistan as a charity worker to help refugees from the fighting in Afghanistan in January 2003.
Mr Ali also told the court he had researched making an explosive device using a drinks bottle, hydrogen peroxide and batteries.
Previously in the trial, the jury was played a 16-minute video in which Mr Ali threatened to teach the West a "lesson they will never forget" and to punish and humiliate non-Muslims.
Prosecutors claim the gang planned to make hydrogen peroxide bombs disguised as soft drinks to detonate in mid-air on at least seven transatlantic passenger planes flying out of Heathrow airport.
The computer systems engineering graduate told the court the planned stunt would have caused huge disruption and generated international publicity.
Media attention
He said: "If we are going to make threats there is no point doing it with a firecracker, you have got to do it with credibility.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif At no stage did I ever even think of going on an airplane or causing an explosion there http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Abdulla Ahmed Ali


"We did not want to kill or injure anyone. Something small enough to cause a large bang, maybe some smoke. Something that would be considered serious and credible, something to generate that mass media attention."
He said he had never considered bombing a plane, saying: "I never had any intention of murdering anyone or injuring anyone. At no stage did I ever even think of going on an airplane or causing an explosion there."
Earlier, Mr Ali told the court he had become politically and religiously active as a teenager but was not an "extremist".
He told how he had been shocked by "appalling" conditions in the refugee camps, where some blamed Britain for their plight but said the mass protest against the Iraq war in London in 2003 had shown him people were "all the same really" and shared the same core beliefs and morals.

School friends
Mr Ali's co-defendants are: Assad Sarwar, 24, of High Wycombe, Bucks, Tanvir Hussain, 27, of Leyton, east London, Waheed Zaman, 23, and Arafat Waheed Khan, 26, both of Walthamstow, east London.
Also charged are Mohammed Gulzar, 26, of Barking, east London, Ibrahim Savant, 27, of Stoke Newington, north London, and Umar Islam, 29, of Plaistow, east London.
All eight deny two joint charges of conspiring to murder and to endanger aircraft.
Mr Ali told the court he had known Mr Khan since primary school and went to secondary school with Mr Savant.
He said he met Mr Zaman at Queen's Road mosque in Walthamstow and knew Mr Sarwar and Mr Islam through charity work but had only met Mr Gulzar once.
The trial continues.

creamhain
2nd Jun 2008, 20:09
The Kahdr family in Canada denied any involvement with terror. The father was killed fighting allied forces in Afgahanistan, the sons are in jail or have been in jail for terror acts.
Terrorists like to take the piss out of the West by using our laws against us. They are all spin doctors. Could you imagine what would happen to them in an Islamic country if they pulled this bull...t.
Sorry, I for one will never believe, they made videos just to scare the west. Hang em high.

G-CPTN
2nd Jun 2008, 20:54
Why would any would-be terrorist tell the truth to a court whose intention was to convict them and lock them up, especially if the proponents represented what the terrorism was designed to destabilise?

Beatriz Fontana
2nd Jun 2008, 21:02
G-CPTN,

A skewed sense of martyrdom and craving for self-publicity?

G-CPTN
2nd Jun 2008, 21:14
Maybe . . .

pigboat
2nd Jun 2008, 21:26
The Kahdr family in Canada denied any involvement with terror. The father was killed fighting allied forces in Afgahanistan,

The Pakistani authorities had Khadr senior by the short and curlies. He was in hospital in Islamabad recuperating from injuries incurred in an explosion in that country, until the Cretin intervened with the Pakistani PM and got him a get out of jail free card.

frostbite
2nd Jun 2008, 21:34
"A skewed sense of martyrdom and craving for self-publicity?"


The second part of which has now been achieved and the first part should be provided in full.

BarbiesBoyfriend
3rd Jun 2008, 13:31
For my part, I'm inclined to believe these guys.

Why?

For one thing, their alleged plan was not credible. You can get a bang out the stuff they had but mixing it up and getting it going in an a/c is mission impossible without being apprehended. Therefore the crime they were alleged to be plotting to commission was not capable of being carried out.

Second point. Why NOT protest about the UKs foreign policy? I feel like protesting about it myself.

Thirdly. The UK has cooked up stuff like this before. Of course they were correct to stop these idiots- and they are definately guilty of a crime- but it suits the government to keep us scared and by 'over-egging the pudding' here, as usual, by making out we were all in imminent deadly danger and only we can save you. Anyone remember the so called terrorists involved in the 'Ricin' plot? A load of complete crap.

I always thought these guys would turn out to be walter mitty types who'd probably been overheard in the bar yakking about how they'd like to put the world to rights.

I'm sure they're off to pris for a while- and rightly so. But 'plot to blow up trans atlantic airliners with liquid explosives'?

I'ts one thing to gob off about stuff like this. Quite another to do it.

Effluent Man
3rd Jun 2008, 14:10
Personally I feel that the stakes are rather high to permit us the luxury of speculation over whether or not they would have been capable of pulling it off or not.

Had the security services taken this somewhat laid back view and it had all gone horribly wrong there would have been calls for heads to roll,and rightly so.

I have just been reading a piece in the Torygraph by Peter Clarke about the need for extra time to question suspects.He makes a convincing case for at least 42 days,and also for the de-politicising of this issue.

We are currently seeing an unholy alliance of the Libertarian left,who would have every radically inspired misfit roaming the world intent on mayhem and those on the right,who presumably place party gain before public safety.

It ill behoves those such as David Davis to play this game trying to persuade us at the same time that he is a no-nonsense straight talking man of the people AND a liberal bleeding heart concerned that an injustice might be done.I smell the distinct whiff of hypocrisy in the air.

Overdrive
3rd Jun 2008, 14:20
For one thing, their alleged plan was not credible. You can get a bang out the stuff they had but mixing it up and getting it going in an a/c is mission impossible without being apprehended. Therefore the crime they were alleged to be plotting to commission was not capable of being carried out.



They must be ok kinda guys then. And since Ahmed Ali said:-


"We did not want to kill or injure anyone. Something small enough to cause a large bang, maybe some smoke. Something that would be considered serious and credible, something to generate that mass media attention."


..it's all no more than modern, multicultural political debate... except for potentially frightening the sh*t out of people and causing chaos. Not exactly something most folks do when they have a gripe. I certainly agree about the authorities' tendency to opportunism and over-egging... how I agree. However, they have already said & admitted enough to make it very clear what they are; wannabe terrorists. He was "traumatised" by working with refugees? He should've stayed to help. I hope they get some more trauma... plenty more. If you don't play YouTube martyr, you don't go to court.



Second point. Why NOT protest about the UKs foreign policy? I feel like protesting about it myself.

You're free to, but I wouldn't advise a "large bang". Or "some smoke".

TractorBoy
3rd Jun 2008, 14:29
A line from "The Producers" spring to mind...

"We find the defendants incredibly guilty" !!:}

BarbiesBoyfriend
3rd Jun 2008, 14:57
Overdrive.

Don't even think about implying that I'm an apologist for these half-wits. I'm not.

BUT. There may be a gigantic difference between what we were TOLD they were trying to do- and what they were ACTUALLY trying to do.

And I for one will NOT be surprised if it turns out that their version of events turns out to be more accurate than what we were told.

Don't forget that the airlines, our pax the BAA et al have spent / wasted / lost freakin millions as a DIRECT result of what we were assured was a very real and credible plot to blow up aircraft with liquid explosives.

The 'terrorists' didn't tell us this. It was our own lot who assured us we were all in the most awful danger.

But don't worry, just do what we say and everything will be ok.

I bet it turns out to be a load of pish. As usual.

G-CPTN
3rd Jun 2008, 15:00
And as I understand the viability of the method (using liquids) is at best 'hit and miss' . . .

Life's a Beech
3rd Jun 2008, 15:01
As is blowing up your shoes. Doesn't mean it wasn't tried!

nosefirsteverytime
3rd Jun 2008, 15:33
If yeh hold a gun in yer hand in a public place, and point it at people, expect to be shot. Most likely killed.

You may have no intention to harm anyone else, just make a point, but that's not a risk people are willing to shoulder as you brandish a weapon at them. Same case here. I don't care what "point" they were trying to make, you assemble the components for an IED, you suffer the consequences.

Trust these vermin as far as you can throw them.

And dump the Daily Hatred conspiracies. That's what's f*cked up Britain!

Overdrive
3rd Jun 2008, 15:51
BUT. There may be a gigantic difference between what we were TOLD they were trying to do- and what they were ACTUALLY trying to do.



Agree with that... but they have gone a little further than bar room banter. There must be no tolerance of this activity, or even the scheming, impotent or not. If they didn't pitch themselves as Heroes Of Allah, then there'd be nothing for the purveyors of "Climate of Fear". The public in general ultimately suffers by their very existence, even the possibilty of their existence.

I hope they get commensurate treatment that may serve as a limiting deterrent, without too many clicks of the Bye-bye Freedom ratchet for us.

pineridge
3rd Jun 2008, 18:09
Pigboat said.....

"until the Cretin intervened with the Pakistani PM and got him a get out of jail free card."


Pigboat means Jean Chretien, the only Canadian prime minister who was unintelligible in both official languages.

KiloDeltaYankee
3rd Jun 2008, 18:52
Barbiesboyfriend, if the 11th of September 01 hijackers had been stopped before they boarded the planes would you have considered their plan credible?

Simultaneously flying planes into buildings, armed only with boxcutters...

I have my doubts as to the viability of liquid bombs, however their intentions were very real and are clearly stated in their martydom videos.

KDY

corsair
3rd Jun 2008, 19:38
Today in court in Dublin a man caught carrying an AK-74 assault rifle in a bag over his shoulder was sentenced. A couple of passing policemen noticed the barrel of the gun sticking out of the bag. They arrested him.

His defence? Well he didn't know there was a gun in the bag! That defence is about as plausible as the stories concocted by these jokers.

Wait for the trial. You might find there is a little more evidence available than we know about yet.

As for the viability of the plot? Well I have my doubts. Fantasists mostly, dangerous fantasists though.

bjcc
3rd Jun 2008, 20:53
BarbiesBoyfriend

I doubt any Police officer is going to bow to Goverment pressure to guild the lilly on this. I also know one of the officers who's invloved in it. He certainly wouldn't lie for anyone, especially the Goverment.

As for having to show a result to justify BAA/DFT rules on airport searches, the 2 things are not connected, in that justifying a Goverment Departments instructions to a private company is not of any interest to Police.

A lot of the evidence the prosecution has presented hasn't been reported, but will be fully aired, I'm sure, when the trial is over. Rather than launching into assumtions on half the evidence, wait till those who've heard it all pass judgment, and we hear a bit more of what the evidence was.

Blacksheep
4th Jun 2008, 08:21
I've had my own issues with the police in the past over their use of anti-terrorism legislation but I reckon they've got it sorted out now and they're doing a marvellous job.

Put me in the jury box, show me a "martyrdom video" and a house full of bomb making kit and all the other arguments either way become superfluous. If you state an intention and are found in possession of the means, that's all the evidence I'd need.

On another case, the 7/7 bombers left one IED back-pack behind in the car boot at Luton. There was clearly another team member who had second thoughts and didn't turn up. Is he among the 'little helpers' involved in another case? But of course not; he was just off to London "for a day out" with his mates. Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

chksix
4th Jun 2008, 08:33
He's not lying when he said he didn't intend on killing anyone since all other bodies on the plane are just infidels and lower ranked than dogs.

rojread
4th Jun 2008, 09:50
Getting a bit tired of these loonies demanding that we tolerate their intolerance!