Political Crossfire Forums

[MoscowMatt]

From BBC news on-line

Reid tells of 'four terror plots'



Reid on terror threat
Home Secretary John Reid has revealed that "at least four major plots" have been thwarted since the 7 July attacks in London last year.
Mr Reid also said the government believes the first al-Qaeda plot in the UK was in 2000 in Birmingham, preceding the war in Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

Police are currently quizzing 23 people over an alleged plot to blow up planes.

Detectives are conducting a major search for evidence at woods near High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire.

The home secretary said he thought it was right to keep Britain at the highest possible level of terrorist alert.

'Substantial threat'

But he acknowledged that the "terribly inconvenient regime" of restrictions imposed on carrying hand luggage was affecting airlines and the travelling public.

He said those limits were being reviewed but any new regime would still need to ensure safety.

"We think we have the main suspects in this particular plot. I have to be honest and say on the basis of what we know, there could be others out there ... so the threat of a terrorist attack in the UK is still very substantial," he told the BBC programme.




Travellers facing further delays

While the police and security forces were doing their job with 100% effort, he said: "We can never guarantee 100% success."

"This has been an ongoing threat, it is a chronic one and it is a severe one," he added.

Even if the threat level was reduced to "severe", Mr Reid said it was "highly likely there would be another terrorist attempt and that is one thing of which we can be sure."

Asked whether the four major plots he revealed could have caused a major loss of life, Mr Reid said: "In my view yes, on the information I have received."




Suspects names released
Who are terror plot suspects?

The Home Secretary was also asked about a report in Sunday's Observer newspaper which said that "up to two dozen" terror investigations were operating across Britain.

Mr Reid said: "I'm not going to confirm an exact number but I wouldn't deny that that would indicate the number of major conspiracies that we are trying to look at.

"There would be more which are not at the centre of our considerations and there may be more that we don't know about at all."

Responding to questions on whether the government would once again push for a 90-day detention of terror suspects, the home secretary said the current situation did not represent "a good time" to look at such measures.

NEW THREAT LEVELS
Low - an attack is unlikely
Moderate - an attack is possible but not likely
Substantial - strong possibility of an attack
Severe - an attack is highly likely
Critical - an attack is expected imminently

But he said it was his own view that 90 days was what police required.

He was also asked his opinion on a letter written by a group of British Muslim leaders who believed the UK's foreign policy could be linked to the terror threat.

Mr Reid said such a belief was a "dreadful misjudgement that foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity".

Shadow home secretary David Davis, speaking on Sky News, also criticised the letter.

"It (foreign policy) might be part of the catalyst, but to explain this is not to excuse it," he said.

"There are plenty of people with legitimate arguments with the government's foreign policy on Iraq, in Afghanistan in Lebanon and the Middle East but none of them take the stance of attempting to murder many thousands of their fellow citizens
*****************************************************
That's all very well but I'm curious to know where are the details and where are the convictions?? Does this mean that the perpetrators of these alleged plots are still at large? All seems a bit vague.

Interesting that it is in 2000 that Al'Qaeda first tried something supposedly. Shame there is not solid evidence on this as it would torpedo a lot of the arguments of those who blame our policy in Iraq on this all!

[AKAMad]

There was plenty of evidence, they are already in prison.
I've lost count of the arrests we have had round here, but I remember this one because I had spent a fortnight in the building where the explosives were.

[DSwain]

MoscowMatt wrote: From BBC news on-line

Reid tells of 'four terror plots'



Reid on terror threat
Home Secretary John Reid has revealed that "at least four major plots" have been thwarted since the 7 July attacks in London last year.
Mr Reid also said the government believes the first al-Qaeda plot in the UK was in 2000 in Birmingham, preceding the war in Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

Police are currently quizzing 23 people over an alleged plot to blow up planes.

Detectives are conducting a major search for evidence at woods near High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire.

The home secretary said he thought it was right to keep Britain at the highest possible level of terrorist alert.

'Substantial threat'

But he acknowledged that the "terribly inconvenient regime" of restrictions imposed on carrying hand luggage was affecting airlines and the travelling public.

He said those limits were being reviewed but any new regime would still need to ensure safety.

"We think we have the main suspects in this particular plot. I have to be honest and say on the basis of what we know, there could be others out there ... so the threat of a terrorist attack in the UK is still very substantial," he told the BBC programme.




Travellers facing further delays

While the police and security forces were doing their job with 100% effort, he said: "We can never guarantee 100% success."

"This has been an ongoing threat, it is a chronic one and it is a severe one," he added.

Even if the threat level was reduced to "severe", Mr Reid said it was "highly likely there would be another terrorist attempt and that is one thing of which we can be sure."

Asked whether the four major plots he revealed could have caused a major loss of life, Mr Reid said: "In my view yes, on the information I have received."




Suspects names released
Who are terror plot suspects?

The Home Secretary was also asked about a report in Sunday's Observer newspaper which said that "up to two dozen" terror investigations were operating across Britain.

Mr Reid said: "I'm not going to confirm an exact number but I wouldn't deny that that would indicate the number of major conspiracies that we are trying to look at.

"There would be more which are not at the centre of our considerations and there may be more that we don't know about at all."

Responding to questions on whether the government would once again push for a 90-day detention of terror suspects, the home secretary said the current situation did not represent "a good time" to look at such measures.

NEW THREAT LEVELS
Low - an attack is unlikely
Moderate - an attack is possible but not likely
Substantial - strong possibility of an attack
Severe - an attack is highly likely
Critical - an attack is expected imminently

But he said it was his own view that 90 days was what police required.

He was also asked his opinion on a letter written by a group of British Muslim leaders who believed the UK's foreign policy could be linked to the terror threat.

Mr Reid said such a belief was a "dreadful misjudgement that foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity".

Shadow home secretary David Davis, speaking on Sky News, also criticised the letter.

"It (foreign policy) might be part of the catalyst, but to explain this is not to excuse it," he said.

"There are plenty of people with legitimate arguments with the government's foreign policy on Iraq, in Afghanistan in Lebanon and the Middle East but none of them take the stance of attempting to murder many thousands of their fellow citizens
*****************************************************
That's all very well but I'm curious to know where are the details and where are the convictions?? Does this mean that the perpetrators of these alleged plots are still at large? All seems a bit vague.

Interesting that it is in 2000 that Al'Qaeda first tried something supposedly. Shame there is not solid evidence on this as it would torpedo a lot of the arguments of those who blame our policy in Iraq on this all!

The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.

[Cyro]

DSwain wrote:
The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.

Well given that it's American interventionist foreign policy that 'aggravated' the middle east in the first place, I think when Britain backs them up we would acquire a healthy dose of their ire too.

Personally, I no longer trust a politician to act in mine, or anyone Else's best interest. In fact if you know a way for me to leave the system, I'd happily sign up for it.

[Pebble]

Quote:

The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

Foreign policy in the Middle East goes a long way further back than Clinton, the seeds for today's problems were sown long ago. Though it is perhaps more likely that our home grown terror is based upon the Iraq war as these attacks have only become apparent more recently.

Quote: I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.


It isn't just 'the Muslims' who disagree with present foreign policy though. I would also question how any of our recent foreign policy has been 'in our interests'. The interests greatest represented are those of the United States.

There was also a wonderful gem from The Right Honourable Member Kim Howells the other day. "No nation bases its foreign policy on the threat of terrorism" - evidently the concept of the 'war on terror' has passed the foreign office by. :?

[DSwain]

Pebble wrote: Quote:

The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

Foreign policy in the Middle East goes a long way further back than Clinton, the seeds for today's problems were sown long ago. Though it is perhaps more likely that our home grown terror is based upon the Iraq war as these attacks have only become apparent more recently.

Quote: I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.


It isn't just 'the Muslims' who disagree with present foreign policy though. I would also question how any of our recent foreign policy has been 'in our interests'. The interests greatest represented are those of the United States.

There was also a wonderful gem from The Right Honourable Member Kim Howells the other day. "No nation bases its foreign policy on the threat of terrorism" - evidently the concept of the 'war on terror' has passed the foreign office by. :?

You must excuse Doc Howells, his mouth is usually several paces ahead of his brain.

I simply do not agree with you that our foreign policy is done in the interest of the US. By all means, disagree with our foreign policy and act accordingly when choosing your representatives. However, to simply trot out the 'poodle' line is really hackneyed now. Please can you highlight any one or three or five elements of British foreign policy that is done solely for the interests of the US? Start a new thread if you wish and let me know where it is and we can debate it; or list them in this thread, wherever you prefer.

The reason I referred solely to Muslims is that the subject under discussion is Islamic terrorism, I was not suggesting that it is ONLY Muslims who disagree with UK foreign policy.

[DSwain]

Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote:
The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.

Well given that it's American interventionist foreign policy that 'aggravated' the middle east in the first place, I think when Britain backs them up we would acquire a healthy dose of their ire too.

Personally, I no longer trust a politician to act in mine, or anyone Else's best interest. In fact if you know a way for me to leave the system, I'd happily sign up for it.

Which elements of US policy would have caused Al-Q to attack America in 2001? Bearing in mind the genesis of the plot being in the late 90s? As opposed to the lazy catchall 'American interventionist foreign policy'.

(Here's a starter: The principle tenet of her interventionist foreign policy in this era was the 1990/1991 Gulf War which, as you will remember, involved considerable support from the Islamic world and which Israel wisely avoided.)

[Cyro]

DSwain wrote: Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote:
The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.

Well given that it's American interventionist foreign policy that 'aggravated' the middle east in the first place, I think when Britain backs them up we would acquire a healthy dose of their ire too.

Personally, I no longer trust a politician to act in mine, or anyone Else's best interest. In fact if you know a way for me to leave the system, I'd happily sign up for it.

Which elements of US policy would have caused Al-Q to attack America in 2001? Bearing in mind the genesis of the plot being in the late 90s? As opposed to the lazy catchall 'American interventionist foreign policy'.

(Here's a starter: The principle tenet of her interventionist foreign policy in this era was the 1990/1991 Gulf War which, as you will remember, involved considerable support from the Islamic world and which Israel wisely avoided.)

Most likely the part of the interventionist policy that harmed them. I'm not going to claim I know the specifics, and to be quite frank I have better ways to spend my time than to shift through 200 years of Empire building history to discover the root causes.

All I know is that over half of the UN member states are policed by US troops. I sure as hell wouldn't want foreign troops policing my countries.

And as for plotting, it's the same principle as with conspiracy you sit down and think of way of accomplishing something, conspiracy just means there's more than one person involved. Never really understood why that's a crime.

[DSwain]

Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote: Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote:
The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.

Well given that it's American interventionist foreign policy that 'aggravated' the middle east in the first place, I think when Britain backs them up we would acquire a healthy dose of their ire too.

Personally, I no longer trust a politician to act in mine, or anyone Else's best interest. In fact if you know a way for me to leave the system, I'd happily sign up for it.

Which elements of US policy would have caused Al-Q to attack America in 2001? Bearing in mind the genesis of the plot being in the late 90s? As opposed to the lazy catchall 'American interventionist foreign policy'.

(Here's a starter: The principle tenet of her interventionist foreign policy in this era was the 1990/1991 Gulf War which, as you will remember, involved considerable support from the Islamic world and which Israel wisely avoided.)

Most likely the part of the interventionist policy that harmed them. I'm not going to claim I know the specifics, and to be quite frank I have better ways to spend my time than to shift through 200 years of Empire building history to discover the root causes.

All I know is that over half of the UN member states are policed by US troops. I sure as hell wouldn't want foreign troops policing my countries.

And as for plotting, it's the same principle as with conspiracy you sit down and think of way of accomplishing something, conspiracy just means there's more than one person involved. Never really understood why that's a crime.

"Over half of the UN member states are policed by US troops"? There are 192 member states of the UN; so you're suggesting that at least 97 of those states are being policed by US troops? Which ones?

I'm not going to discuss the rest with you as you clearly don't have the time to back up your opinions and that's fine, priorities and all that.

[Cyro]

DSwain wrote: Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote: Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote:
The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.

Well given that it's American interventionist foreign policy that 'aggravated' the middle east in the first place, I think when Britain backs them up we would acquire a healthy dose of their ire too.

Personally, I no longer trust a politician to act in mine, or anyone Else's best interest. In fact if you know a way for me to leave the system, I'd happily sign up for it.

Which elements of US policy would have caused Al-Q to attack America in 2001? Bearing in mind the genesis of the plot being in the late 90s? As opposed to the lazy catchall 'American interventionist foreign policy'.

(Here's a starter: The principle tenet of her interventionist foreign policy in this era was the 1990/1991 Gulf War which, as you will remember, involved considerable support from the Islamic world and which Israel wisely avoided.)

Most likely the part of the interventionist policy that harmed them. I'm not going to claim I know the specifics, and to be quite frank I have better ways to spend my time than to shift through 200 years of Empire building history to discover the root causes.

All I know is that over half of the UN member states are policed by US troops. I sure as hell wouldn't want foreign troops policing my countries.

And as for plotting, it's the same principle as with conspiracy you sit down and think of way of accomplishing something, conspiracy just means there's more than one person involved. Never really understood why that's a crime.

"Over half of the UN member states are policed by US troops"? There are 192 member states of the UN; so you're suggesting that at least 97 of those states are being policed by US troops? Which ones?

I'm not going to discuss the rest with you as you clearly don't have the time to back up your opinions and that's fine, priorities and all that.

As I recall the number was in the 130's. Though that may just be 'stationed' as opposed to 'policed'.

[DSwain]

Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote: Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote: Cyro wrote: DSwain wrote:
The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.

Well given that it's American interventionist foreign policy that 'aggravated' the middle east in the first place, I think when Britain backs them up we would acquire a healthy dose of their ire too.

Personally, I no longer trust a politician to act in mine, or anyone Else's best interest. In fact if you know a way for me to leave the system, I'd happily sign up for it.

Which elements of US policy would have caused Al-Q to attack America in 2001? Bearing in mind the genesis of the plot being in the late 90s? As opposed to the lazy catchall 'American interventionist foreign policy'.

(Here's a starter: The principle tenet of her interventionist foreign policy in this era was the 1990/1991 Gulf War which, as you will remember, involved considerable support from the Islamic world and which Israel wisely avoided.)

Most likely the part of the interventionist policy that harmed them. I'm not going to claim I know the specifics, and to be quite frank I have better ways to spend my time than to shift through 200 years of Empire building history to discover the root causes.

All I know is that over half of the UN member states are policed by US troops. I sure as hell wouldn't want foreign troops policing my countries.

And as for plotting, it's the same principle as with conspiracy you sit down and think of way of accomplishing something, conspiracy just means there's more than one person involved. Never really understood why that's a crime.

"Over half of the UN member states are policed by US troops"? There are 192 member states of the UN; so you're suggesting that at least 97 of those states are being policed by US troops? Which ones?

I'm not going to discuss the rest with you as you clearly don't have the time to back up your opinions and that's fine, priorities and all that.

As I recall the number was in the 130's. Though that may just be 'stationed' as opposed to 'policed'.

I can think of 25 NATO members in which varying numbers of US troops are stationed - this is part of a treaty organisation but we'll count them (25)
- then we've got significant bases in Japan, the Phillipines and Cuba (3)
- 'war on terror': Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE plus former Soviet central Asian republics (9)
- Balkans: part of UN ops and staging posts (4)

Well, I'm up to 41 and can't think of many more.

I don't mean to be funny Cyro, but I've never heard your figures quoted anywhere and unless you're going to link to a source, I'm not going to believe it. But if you - or anyone - wishes to do the research and post it, then great - we can discuss it as a basis for why Al-Q might have launched the September 11th attacks on the US.

[mendosan]

Quote: It isn't just 'the Muslims' who disagree with present foreign policy though. I would also question how any of our recent foreign policy has been 'in our interests'. The interests greatest represented are those of the United States.

Its only Muslims that say change your forgein policy or else.

[Pebble]

DSwain wrote: Pebble wrote: Quote:

The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

Foreign policy in the Middle East goes a long way further back than Clinton, the seeds for today's problems were sown long ago. Though it is perhaps more likely that our home grown terror is based upon the Iraq war as these attacks have only become apparent more recently.

Quote: I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.


It isn't just 'the Muslims' who disagree with present foreign policy though. I would also question how any of our recent foreign policy has been 'in our interests'. The interests greatest represented are those of the United States.

There was also a wonderful gem from The Right Honourable Member Kim Howells the other day. "No nation bases its foreign policy on the threat of terrorism" - evidently the concept of the 'war on terror' has passed the foreign office by. :?

You must excuse Doc Howells, his mouth is usually several paces ahead of his brain.

He raised himself in my expectations over critisising Israeli actions over Lebanon, but has since lost that.

Quote: I simply do not agree with you that our foreign policy is done in the interest of the US. By all means, disagree with our foreign policy and act accordingly when choosing your representatives. However, to simply trot out the 'poodle' line is really hackneyed now. Please can you highlight any one or three or five elements of British foreign policy that is done solely for the interests of the US? Start a new thread if you wish and let me know where it is and we can debate it; or list them in this thread, wherever you prefer.

The reason I referred solely to Muslims is that the subject under discussion is Islamic terrorism, I was not suggesting that it is ONLY Muslims who disagree with UK foreign policy.

Fair enough, though on the same bounds you and I both know that we aren't talking general foreign policy here; we're talking the Middle East. Furthermore, I never claimed that our foreign policy was soley to America's advantage.

That said; neither the Iraq War, Afghanistan, nor political support of Israel during the recent conflict was 'in our interests', for starters. Support for the Iraq war was purchased on false premise with deliberately falsified evidence. A bias towards American veiws is clear. You may believe that the 'Poodle' line is getting old; it is however getting no less apt.

Mendosan wrote:
Its only Muslims that say change your forgein policy or else.

Not true. 'They' merely say it in a different way. Take a look at the 2005 elections, they ran soley as a one issue campaign, take a look at the message that was delivered.

I would also argue that you unfairly malign all Muslims as wanting to change our foreign policy of resort to violence. Recent efforts from Muslim commmunity leaders involved an open letter to the Foreign Office. - The reactions to which actually produced the above Kim Howell quote.

[DSwain]

Pebble wrote: DSwain wrote: Pebble wrote: Quote:

The argument that Iraq is at the base of it is nonsense; don't forget that the September 11th attacks were being planned back in 1998/9, when Clinton was in the White House and was pressuring Israel to give BIG concessions to the Palestinians.

Foreign policy in the Middle East goes a long way further back than Clinton, the seeds for today's problems were sown long ago. Though it is perhaps more likely that our home grown terror is based upon the Iraq war as these attacks have only become apparent more recently.

Quote: I will admit, however, that some Muslims disagree with British foreign policy and that this is a contributory factor to these terror plots. However it is the job of any government to conduct policy in the best interests of the country and not to appease bombers.


It isn't just 'the Muslims' who disagree with present foreign policy though. I would also question how any of our recent foreign policy has been 'in our interests'. The interests greatest represented are those of the United States.

There was also a wonderful gem from The Right Honourable Member Kim Howells the other day. "No nation bases its foreign policy on the threat of terrorism" - evidently the concept of the 'war on terror' has passed the foreign office by. :?

You must excuse Doc Howells, his mouth is usually several paces ahead of his brain.

He raised himself in my expectations over critisising Israeli actions over Lebanon, but has since lost that.

Quote: I simply do not agree with you that our foreign policy is done in the interest of the US. By all means, disagree with our foreign policy and act accordingly when choosing your representatives. However, to simply trot out the 'poodle' line is really hackneyed now. Please can you highlight any one or three or five elements of British foreign policy that is done solely for the interests of the US? Start a new thread if you wish and let me know where it is and we can debate it; or list them in this thread, wherever you prefer.

The reason I referred solely to Muslims is that the subject under discussion is Islamic terrorism, I was not suggesting that it is ONLY Muslims who disagree with UK foreign policy.

Fair enough, though on the same bounds you and I both know that we aren't talking general foreign policy here; we're talking the Middle East. Furthermore, I never claimed that our foreign policy was soley to America's advantage.

That said; neither the Iraq War, Afghanistan, nor political support of Israel during the recent conflict was 'in our interests', for starters. Support for the Iraq war was purchased on false premise with deliberately falsified evidence. A bias towards American veiws is clear. You may believe that the 'Poodle' line is getting old; it is however getting no less apt.

Quote:
Its only Muslims that say change your forgein policy or else.

Not true. 'They' merely say it in a different way. Take a look at the 2005 elections, they ran soley as a one issue campaign, take a look at the message that was delivered.

I would also argue that you unfairly malign all Muslims as wanting to change our foreign policy of resort to violence. Recent efforts from Muslim commmunity leaders involved an open letter to the Foreign Office. - The reactions to which actually produced the above Kim Howell quote.

Pebble - I didn't say the line about Muslims saying 'change your policy or else', I think it was Mendosan.

[Pebble]

I know, I dislike double posts though. I'll edit back through it and put the appropriate label on for you. ;)

[DSwain]

Pebble wrote: I know, I dislike double posts though. I'll edit back through it and put the appropriate label on for you. ;)

No problem Pebble

[Selfish_Meme]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

Was the terror plot even feasible?

[Kane]

Selfish_Meme wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

Was the terror plot even feasible?

Does it matter? Intent seemed to clearly be present...