Cyprus-Forum.com

[cypezokyli]

a very interesting article from a jew about the politics of its own country

http://www.phileleftheros.com/main/main ... &id=429307

[Damsi]

Chemistry and the politics of fear
By Jean Christou

HOLES have already begun to appear in the great British terror plot that disrupted the lives of millions of people in the past couple of weeks, and which will have serious implications for air travel in the future.

Laying aside the fact that the threat was hyped as “imminent” even though none of the would-be terrorists had purchased air tickets and some did not even have passports, the Guardian yesterday revealed police had confirmed that the explosive in question was a substance called TATP.
If this was the plan, then TATP was not the easiest way to “create mass murder on an unimaginable scale”, at least not on an aircraft.

A 2004 scientific peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) says that the explosive force of TATP comes from the sudden decomposition of a solid into gasses.

Solid? So where does the liquid come in.

Ah. You actually have to transform the liquids into a solid on the plane, preferably under laboratory conditions. According to an article in The Register, based on the findings in the JACS report: “After chilling for ten hours, take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulphuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs, a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, a medicine dropper, gloves and protective goggles. You're going to need them.

“It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Carrying an ice bucket to the lavatory could be particularly tricky in terms of suspicious behaviour, but the explosive can’t be made without it. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide/acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. This will take some time. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat. If it goes only a little above the required temperature, you'll end up with a weak explosive but if it goes too high, you'll likely get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

“After a few hours – assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities – you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission.

Now all you need to do is dry it out for another hour or two.”

The explosive crystals – around one quarter of a kilo would be needed to have any effect on an aircraft – could be made at home and disguised as something else, but there is also a major flaw in taking that route. TATP is more unstable than nitro glycerine, so it’s doubtful any would-be terrorist would even make it to the airport alive.

This is not to say there was no plot – this jury is still out – but the British and American authorities, egged on by a hysterical media and their sound-bite ‘experts’, absolutely wallowed in the ‘fear factor’.

If they had done their homework, they would have discovered that making TATP in particular, requires not just the necessary liquids but also the ‘lab’ equipment. Otherwise, no TATP and no explosion worth mentioning, but that probably wouldn’t bring in enough viewers.

Gerry Murray, of the Forensic Science Agency, told the Guardian that if an individual had never made the explosive before “he would need a great deal of luck to manufacture it on a plane”.

If these suspected terrorists have been under surveillance for nearly a year, there must be some evidence that they had practised making TATP. If they had not, it means they were doomed to do nothing more than possibly kill themselves in the plane’s lavatory before the explosive had even turned into the lethal solid form necessary for detonation. Not very clever, despite one of George Bush’s most famous misstatements: “Our enemies are clever and resourceful – and so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm our country and our people – and neither do we.”

Even if the suspects had managed to smuggle everything they needed on to the plane – or in this case ten planes – could any of them really have got away with concocting such a lengthy and tricky chemical procedure on board without arousing suspicion?

The majority of newspapers and television stations, particularly in the US, gave the impression that anyone can smuggle a few innocuous liquid household chemicals on board a plane, simply nip into the lavatory, mix them together, detonate and blow everyone out of the sky. Why mislead the public into thinking it was that easy?

Or was all the hype part of the ‘other plot’ to perpetuate the new climate of fear in which people in the US and Britain now live, scared into believing there are terrorists lurking in every nook and cranny, and running to their leaders to protect them by allowing tighter controls on their own individual freedoms?

It was Benjamin Franklin who said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Yes, both countries have been the victims of devastating terrorist attacks, but both governments still refuse to acknowledge the root of the problem and continue making the same mistakes. They just change location and harvest a new crop of enemies. “They hate our freedoms” doesn’t cut it as a plausible excuse for the neo-con doctrine of pre-emptive war under the ridiculous guise of ‘good versus evil’.

When was the last al-Qaeda attack on Finland, Norway, Sweden or Switzerland, all countries with exactly the same freedoms and values as the United States and Britain?

In any case, given Britain’s recent track record in uncovering terror plots, which have resulted in the cold-blooded execution of an innocent Brazilian on a London underground train, and the wounding of an innocent British Muslim man in a raid on his home, it is not surprising that people don’t know who to believe any more.

If the British authorities had been allowed to continue their investigation, they might very well have uncovered the necessary evidence that this was a real threat and that it was going to happen at some point in the near, if not imminent, future.

But NBC News reported on Monday that US and British authorities “had a significant disagreement” over when to move in on the suspects.

Washington wanted it out in the open immediately. And in the words of the ‘Commander in Chief’, who milked it for all it was worth: "This country is safer than it was prior to 9/11... We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people but obviously we're not completely safe.”

Indeed there’s nothing more Orwellian than playing on people’s fears, especially when you need a boost to flagging poll numbers because you’re under fire for becoming embroiled in an un-winnable and illegal war, for fully supporting the large-scale bombing of another country by one of your major allies, and for currently eying up another member of the ‘axis of evil’ for possible attack.

And don't forget the little issues at home, having signed off to unilaterally ignore 700 laws passed by Congress and the criticism over the illegal wiretapping of your own citizens as the mid-term elections loom in November.

And the latter are just Bush’s domestic issues. Add Tony Blair’s problems at home to the war package, and many sceptics could be forgiven for thinking: “Quick I need a distraction on the scale of 9/11 or 7/7 without the casualties.”

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2006

[dancingbear]

andri_cy,Kikapu
Well for a start why dont you get off your backsides go to Iraq and ask, simple really. I dont Google if thats what you think, this info can be found in any of the Regimental journal's if that is your wish. As a Soldier it is not your duty to question your political masters(or is it) otherwise why bother to join in the first place we are and are still all volunteers.
because so far you haven't given me anything that worth anything.
The truth kikapu the Truth. You asked and I gave .

Bear

[RichardB]

andri_cy,Kikapu
Well for a start why dont you get off your backsides go to Iraq and ask, simple really. I dont Google if thats what you think, this info can be found in any of the Regimental journal's if that is your wish. As a Soldier it is not your duty to question your political masters(or is it) otherwise why bother to join in the first place we are and are still all volunteers.
because so far you haven't given me anything that worth anything.
The truth kikapu the Truth. You asked and I gave .

Bear

If I remember correctly one of the duties when you were sworn in as a member of the armed forces was to

'support the government of the day at home and abroad'

Maybe you'll be able to correct/confirm this bear?

[dancingbear]

Richard,
Its been a long time since I was sworn in, not sure about this bit tho.........'support the government of the day at home and abroad' will get back with full request once checked details.

Bear

[dancingbear]

RichardB,
well that didn't take long...

Attestation
Attestation is a formal procedure undertaken by all candidates to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. This is a pre-requisite before embarking on the basic recruit course.

The oath to be taken is as follows:

I (your name) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the Air Officers and Officers set over me. So help me God.

For those recruits who are a Citizen of a Commonwealth Country, or in law make a conscientious declinature of taking the oath, a similar statement is made without reference to God.

So no mention to Goverment thankfully.


Bear

[chedda]

The constitution of the UK still empowers the royal family in such case as the goverment becomes in effective. Its no surprise its still royal navy , royal air force , royal army and royal marines. I think there is a mechanism in place through the higher ranks and officers of allegiance firstly to the crown. I think Mr Blair still meets the Queen once a week and runs all major decisions through her.

[dancingbear]

Chedda,
No such thing as a Royal Army(Royal Regiments yes, ie, Royal Horse Artillery), the others though are correct.
All military personell swear Oath to HM The Queen.

Bear

[chedda]

I thought it didn't sound right ! I guess if ever your political allegiances were questioned you would ultimately follow and protect the queens interests. After all the royals have been around longer than politics in the uk and one could argue they made Britain Great in the first place .

[Kikapu]

Chemistry and the politics of fear
By Jean Christou

HOLES have already begun to appear in the great British terror plot that disrupted the lives of millions of people in the past couple of weeks, and which will have serious implications for air travel in the future.

Laying aside the fact that the threat was hyped as “imminent” even though none of the would-be terrorists had purchased air tickets and some did not even have passports, the Guardian yesterday revealed police had confirmed that the explosive in question was a substance called TATP.
If this was the plan, then TATP was not the easiest way to “create mass murder on an unimaginable scale”, at least not on an aircraft.

A 2004 scientific peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) says that the explosive force of TATP comes from the sudden decomposition of a solid into gasses.

Solid? So where does the liquid come in.

Ah. You actually have to transform the liquids into a solid on the plane, preferably under laboratory conditions. According to an article in The Register, based on the findings in the JACS report: “After chilling for ten hours, take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulphuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs, a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, a medicine dropper, gloves and protective goggles. You're going to need them.

“It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate.

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Carrying an ice bucket to the lavatory could be particularly tricky in terms of suspicious behaviour, but the explosive can’t be made without it. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide/acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. This will take some time. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat. If it goes only a little above the required temperature, you'll end up with a weak explosive but if it goes too high, you'll likely get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

“After a few hours – assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities – you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission.

Now all you need to do is dry it out for another hour or two.”

The explosive crystals – around one quarter of a kilo would be needed to have any effect on an aircraft – could be made at home and disguised as something else, but there is also a major flaw in taking that route. TATP is more unstable than nitro glycerine, so it’s doubtful any would-be terrorist would even make it to the airport alive.

This is not to say there was no plot – this jury is still out – but the British and American authorities, egged on by a hysterical media and their sound-bite ‘experts’, absolutely wallowed in the ‘fear factor’.

If they had done their homework, they would have discovered that making TATP in particular, requires not just the necessary liquids but also the ‘lab’ equipment. Otherwise, no TATP and no explosion worth mentioning, but that probably wouldn’t bring in enough viewers.

Gerry Murray, of the Forensic Science Agency, told the Guardian that if an individual had never made the explosive before “he would need a great deal of luck to manufacture it on a plane”.

If these suspected terrorists have been under surveillance for nearly a year, there must be some evidence that they had practised making TATP. If they had not, it means they were doomed to do nothing more than possibly kill themselves in the plane’s lavatory before the explosive had even turned into the lethal solid form necessary for detonation. Not very clever, despite one of George Bush’s most famous misstatements: “Our enemies are clever and resourceful – and so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm our country and our people – and neither do we.”

Even if the suspects had managed to smuggle everything they needed on to the plane – or in this case ten planes – could any of them really have got away with concocting such a lengthy and tricky chemical procedure on board without arousing suspicion?

The majority of newspapers and television stations, particularly in the US, gave the impression that anyone can smuggle a few innocuous liquid household chemicals on board a plane, simply nip into the lavatory, mix them together, detonate and blow everyone out of the sky. Why mislead the public into thinking it was that easy?

Or was all the hype part of the ‘other plot’ to perpetuate the new climate of fear in which people in the US and Britain now live, scared into believing there are terrorists lurking in every nook and cranny, and running to their leaders to protect them by allowing tighter controls on their own individual freedoms?

It was Benjamin Franklin who said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Yes, both countries have been the victims of devastating terrorist attacks, but both governments still refuse to acknowledge the root of the problem and continue making the same mistakes. They just change location and harvest a new crop of enemies. “They hate our freedoms” doesn’t cut it as a plausible excuse for the neo-con doctrine of pre-emptive war under the ridiculous guise of ‘good versus evil’.

When was the last al-Qaeda attack on Finland, Norway, Sweden or Switzerland, all countries with exactly the same freedoms and values as the United States and Britain?

In any case, given Britain’s recent track record in uncovering terror plots, which have resulted in the cold-blooded execution of an innocent Brazilian on a London underground train, and the wounding of an innocent British Muslim man in a raid on his home, it is not surprising that people don’t know who to believe any more.

If the British authorities had been allowed to continue their investigation, they might very well have uncovered the necessary evidence that this was a real threat and that it was going to happen at some point in the near, if not imminent, future.

But NBC News reported on Monday that US and British authorities “had a significant disagreement” over when to move in on the suspects.

Washington wanted it out in the open immediately. And in the words of the ‘Commander in Chief’, who milked it for all it was worth: "This country is safer than it was prior to 9/11... We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people but obviously we're not completely safe.”

Indeed there’s nothing more Orwellian than playing on people’s fears, especially when you need a boost to flagging poll numbers because you’re under fire for becoming embroiled in an un-winnable and illegal war, for fully supporting the large-scale bombing of another country by one of your major allies, and for currently eying up another member of the ‘axis of evil’ for possible attack.

And don't forget the little issues at home, having signed off to unilaterally ignore 700 laws passed by Congress and the criticism over the illegal wiretapping of your own citizens as the mid-term elections loom in November.

And the latter are just Bush’s domestic issues. Add Tony Blair’s problems at home to the war package, and many sceptics could be forgiven for thinking: “Quick I need a distraction on the scale of 9/11 or 7/7 without the casualties.”

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2006

Excellent article. Not far off than what I have written on this subject for the last week or so.