Beavis and Butthead in London jihad Police and securocrats know that there aren't enough real terrorists in the world, which is why they have to keep manufacturing them. This is because citizens tire of being watched by cameras, frisked and x-rayed, having their belongings searched, giving fingerprints to so-called friendly nations on entry, contemplating the …
Imagine someone pointed a shotgun at you and pulled the trigger, and it turned out that they'd forgotten to load it....
Would you count your lucky stars and make damn sure they couldn't point a shotgun at you any more, just in case the next tme it WAS loaded?
Or would you just think "ah well" and let them continue to point a shotgun at you, because you know based on prior experience that the chances are the gun isn't loaded?
What a load of indignant rhetoric - and bollocks !
Firstly, well done the anonymous poster with the Utube link - that nicely demonstrates what the article was saying ! You fill a car with gas cylinders and petrol, then set fire to it, what happens ? The fire consumes the oxygen (of which there was only about 20% to start with, the other 80% being mostly inert nitrogen) until the heat makes the windows break. The fire then continues at a rate determined by how fast fresh oxygen can get in.
As other have pointed out, the gas cylinders will just vent and while this will fuel the fire it won't cause a big bang, or even a big fireball - just a bigger fire.
In the Utube video, you can see that a VERY much bigger tanker is engulfed in a fire and it lets go - resulting in a big bang^H^H^H^Hfireball. Yes it engulfed a largish area, but notice how long it took ? Long enough to evacuate the area I think you'll find. Notice that it didn't level the area which is what would have happened had the "government propaganda and media hype" version of chemistry been true !
No, as the article points out, the way these things are hyped to extreme means that the biggest threat isn't the terrorists, it's the government and the media who are doing their job for them ! The function of terrorism is to induce panic and fear into the targets - what better way than for the target's own government and media to do that for you ?
And like others, my garage is well equipped to make big bangs if I was so inclined, and I can thing of very easy ways to make a much bigger bang with much less material - no need to piles of containers.
says: "No matter what we do in life we can not avoid the inevitability of death so maybe it is time we grew up and started to evaluate the risks of life like adults rather than hoping that 'nanny' will protect us from all misfortunes. Maybe then we might learn how to live as a free people."
I don't quite know where to begin in assailing this astoundingly naive (to be kind) statement.
Everyone who entrusts their children to the care of a nanny expects without saying that they will be protected from misfortunes. Misfortunes can be generally defined as unhappy, unforeseen events. A nanny, having foresight and experience, will hopefully protect his/her charges from misfortune.
Nannies are hired because they have special, relevant knowledge in caring for children.
Adults have the same need for protection from "misfortunes". That is evidenced by the creation of everything from weather forecasting agencies to police agencies. Such agencies are in place to protect everyone (not just children).
These people have special, relevant knowledge in their fields and help to protect us from unforeseen events.
I would suggest the author travel to Saudi Arabia and start spouting anti-Islamic speech through a bullhorn on a street-corner.
The nannies there are not nearly so kind, or so I've heard.
Terence, would you be the one to ban all forms of human activity because there is some chance of dying, as you would not have the courage to face the families afterward if anyone should so much as choke on a breadcrust? No, people die, quite a few members of my own family have, and there are people who are specially trained to comfort families and the injured, no matter how it happens. There are severe punishments for those who kill. There are also forms of human depravity and callousness that are much crueler than a bungled terrorist attempt; you don't need to push your phobias on me.
Steve, how does that analogy relate? How would you define "make damn sure they couldn't point a shotgun at you any more" in this context, when the kids will do jail time? I'm curious, honestly. No one should be able to buy petrol or propane? No one should be allowed to drive/park near a crowded street corner? No one should be able to see the Toran? All people should be confined to homes?
Continuing your analogy, would you ban all shotguns? Maybe knives too? Decree that all hands must be amputated? Would you huddle in your room where no one could hurt you? How far would you go to make sure that no one could ever threaten you again?
Your anology makes the most sense when it comes to punishing the losers who tried this, and that's exactly why so many "attempted" laws are on the books. No one that I could see here is in any way advocating not punishing anyone, so I have to assume you're simply not thinking very hard before posting.
@Terence Peters
" The other commenter was referring to the clear lack of compassion shown by some commenters here towards those that have been hurt and killed as well as to those who - but for some luck - would have been killed, mutilated, and burned in these incidents. "
This is sheer screaming gibberish nonsense insanity. You're criticising us for not showing enough imaginary sympathy to the non-existent victims of something that didn't happen?
There are two sides in this debate. One is saying "It's not worth giving up any more of our freedoms because the sacrifice isn't actually making us any more secure". The other is saying "ZOMGWTF?!!! Are you in favour of terrorists? Oh why won't you think of the children, you heartless leftist scumbags". This is a non-sequitur argument, it's a bunch of bullshit emotional blackmail and I don't see any reason why we should kow-tow to your McCarthyite ranting.
Terence Peters, TimeTraveller et al
Please, reconsider your position after giving the article and other comments some extra thought: Nobody tried to imply the innocence of a gas cylinder stacked in a coat of nails. On the contrary.
But if we want to counter terrorism, we need to distinguish clearly between people who almost daily kill tens of soldiers with a single car- or road-side bomb, in Iraq; and two retards who load their Jeep with some gas cylinders, sprinkle petrol over their bodies, drive the car into the vicinity of an airport, and finally crash themselves sitting in said car into the terminal hall; with the car bursting into flames. Look at the photos that the Beep provides. Nice fireball.
If we want to warn people in the cinema, we can't yell 'Fire' each 5 minutes, thanks Nordrick.
If I were in UK or a citizen, I'd protest the coverage of the BBC: "The police have not speculated. But Mr Clarke said on Friday he recognised that facets of these attempted bombings resonate with previous plots" No speculation ?
"we are dealing, in general terms, with people who are associated with al-Qaeda", says your very fresh PM. What makes him think so ? His desire to generally keep the population in a state of suspense ?
Up to you to speculate why the PM is so keen on this link, instead of dreading it.
Foxyshadis, the original article states :
"This should have been dismissed for what it is: an event on the level of some teenagers getting a tremendously foolish notion, and being drunk enough for it to appeal to them. But we're hearing whispers of terrorism instead"
My point was that just because the consequences were small, primarily as a result of the perpetrators incompetence, that doesn't mean it should be 'dismissed' as the author suggests. Because, to go back to my original analogy, the next time the shotgun could be loaded...
I'm afraid that I agree with the author - the securo-industrial complex, (the one that took over from the military-industrial complex after the end of the Cold War [assuming the prez isn't trying to start it up again?!]), will use these morons as an excuse for more totalitarian measures, (e.g. this morning the BBC was already saying that this was a justification for the 90 days without charge detention - err, not imho!).
Some nitwit of a commentator - not on the Beeb - actually had the gall to suggest that this is why road tolling is a good idea, by making it easier to track Achmed the Arsonist and his buddies. Err, nope (again imho).
Best comment goes to the genius who - when asked whether we need more cctv - said "no, it's not necessary when you've got a calm population who know suspicious behaviour when they see it". After all, according to the news the flaming halfwits at Glasgow were "restrained by police and members of the public". I think if someone tried to flambe me and my family then I'd try and to do more than just "restrain" the would-be bomber. ;-)
At the end of the day - thankfully - these three incidents did little. People are still turning up at the airport, and the vast majority of them will be able to go on their holidays. And I would imagine that - unless the police say otherwise - that the London nightclub targetted will also be open tonight.
Oh, and apart from the cctv angle, what exactly has this got to do with IT? Are we all being fitted up with tracker bracelets or something...
Of course, we shouldn't arrest these people because they got it wrong first time round.
You've really shown me the light - we should leave them out there until they've realised their mistake, and only after they've built a functioning explosive device and killed people should we try to find and arrest them. In the meantime, we can just sit back and pretend that no one's clever enough to be able to kill.
Frankly, I don't care if they kill a thousand or no one at all. They are using violence (whether successful or not) in furtherance of their political aims. That makes them terrorists. Sooner or later they will kill if they're left free, and the only way to stop that is to track them down now.
I have serious misgivings about the UK government's wish to curb our freedoms, but I'm not thick - these people need to be caught, and the fact that they failed first time is nothing but pure luck. It's no reason to "dismiss" them and their actions - unless you want to die that is.
"Citizens tire also of reading the rolls of the war dead fraudulently sacrificed in the name of counterterrorist "victory", "
Poor work, very third rate chattering-class Owen wannabe. People tire of the witless fools who send men and women to war for their own vanity. Of those dead and lost from needless conflict, these people shall always be remembered and, within their families, their memories cherished.
For the writer to then go on and treat these latest terrorism atempts with such derision ironically illustrates their own narrow mindset; that the bungling will continue and the foolish simple folk with a twisted view of a religion will go on making themselves look stupid. Increased monitoring of our communities and interference in our private lives is not the forward to deal with this menace, just as warring with different cultures is no way to put across your opinion. But treating such threats with such disdain is just as idiotic.
An island of independent though and sanity in a sea of unquestioning media hysteria.
As for the what has this got to do with IT whinges. Since I have bee reading El Reg there has been a consitant policy of writing non IT related articles sometimes on important issues but mostly out of a purient interest in female anatomy.
Keep up the good work.
In reading this article, people seem to have split into two camps. Those who think before reacting, and those who react before thinking. The article falls into the former, and those decrying it the latter.
The important thing most people forget is that terrorism isn't about killing people. Its never been about killing people. The IRA understood that you can perform terrorist acts, and not kill. The idea of it is, as the name suggests, to spread terror.
It is the intimidation of the populace, the generation of fear and the resultant reaction by the populace that is the actual aim of terrorism. You will often hear people just like Finnbar, and Terrance Peters, claiming that these terrorists need cracking down on, and clearly not thinking, just emotionally reacting. The (rather misnamed) USA PATRIOT act was a clear victory for the so-called terrorists. In my phone book (a phone book for a small rural town whose only claim to fame was that its was used for "My Cousin Vinny") it has a 3 page spread about 'what you need to do to prepare for a terrorist attack.
Basically, if you define a terrorist as someone who uses the threat of attacks to instill fear on a populace, in an effort to change or restrict the smooth and free continuance of everyday living, you will find that the real terrorists are the ones that self-same terrified populace has elected into power.
Personally, I am probably unique out of those posting here, in that I have had first hand experiance of terrorism. I had walked past one of the Warrington bombs (the one on Bridge street) in 1993 a few moments before it went off. I can still remember the sound of the bang. That is a sound that will stay with me for life. It doesn't stop me however. I've also seen the other side of the coin, as I was working on Treasure island (in the middle of the San Fransisco bay) during the 4 bridge alert in November 2001. myself and a collegue spotted an abandoned box van on the Bay Bridge one morning driving to work, and reported it to the National Guard unit stationed on the bridge. From the car park of our studio, we could see the bridge, and the van was still there 5 hours later. They were *REALLY* concerned about the threat obviously.
In short, think before reacting, and remmeber the aim of terrorism is precisely the reaction a lot of people give - to be afraid, upset, angry and to change their way of life. Well done, you knee-jerkers, and terrorist obsessors, you've handed them the victory, just as Bush does every time he gives a speech.
"the truth remains that these people want us dead, and they want it because we aren't muslim, because we don't worship their version of god and don't venerate his prophet."
Sorry, but that is not the case. They don't want us dead because we're not Muslims, they want us dead because we meddle in regional policies we have no understanding of. The US have earned the moniker of Great Satan not because of the difference in religion, but because of the carelessness and downright callousness of US behavior towards Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular. Notice also that none of this attitude existed before the forced creation of the state of Israel, which is, in my opinion, the worst mistake the UN has ever made.
Until that issue is resolved - and frankly, between how irresolute and inefficient the UN is and how adept the US is in keeping things that way, I don't think it ever will be - the fundamentalists will continue droning on about the Great Satan and how it is the ultimate enemy of their way of life.
Well, until the day comes when there is no more oil, anyway. Then we'll all leave them alone probably, since we won't have any more economical incentive to bother them. Unfortunately, by that time there will have been entire generations of jihadists raised on hatred of the West, and who knows what that will bring ?
I found it rather amusing that the movie V for Vendetta premiered on Sky Movies the same weekend as this "car bomb" thingy... but of course that movie is ridiculous, no way would the British let a crazed looney tell us what to do and compromise all our privacies and freedoms in case we might be "terrorists"... of course not, how silly.
Especially not the banning of "inappropriate materials" (I wonder how easy it would be to take a copy of the Koran onto a commercial flight in one's hand luggage") or political spin on every news story...
I only wonder how long it will take them to figure out that several cartoonists and sci-fi writers have been onto them for decades - they just do it in a subtle way and so can get away with it without being censored.
Just wait - I hear a knocking at my door...
"Making a working bomb is a non-trivial, but not too difficult task. The basics are easily within the grasp of anyone who halfway paid attention in high school physics and chemistry. So why so many failures?"
We can thank the government and exam boards across the country for their sterling work in ensuring that this dangerous scientific knowledge no longer falls into the hands of <s>children</s> potential terrorists...
Thankfully only to the incompetance of those involved, many people weren't killed on Friday in London or on Saturday in Glasgow. True the terrorists concerned may be inept but their intention was to kill as many people as possible.
The tube-bombers on July 21st were also pathetically inept, sadly for the 52 killed and hundreds injured the tube-bombers on July 7th weren't.
Intent not competance defines a terrorist.
While I expect conspiracy-theorists (ie the CIA & Mossad orchestracted 9/11, the Holocaust didn't happen, and other such rubbish) and ultra-leftists (still upset at the collapse communism) to take any opportunity to attack verbally Western democracy in blogs such as this, I find it unbelievable that a technology website carries such utter tosh as that produced by Thomas Greene. If Mr Greene wants to vent such political polemic in public might I suggest a career in politics rather than masquerading as a journalist?
... terrorism - To create terror and fear. If the media reported accurately and didn't hype it up so much, then there would be less fear and terror created, all the media do is further the agenda of the terrorist, lending them credability and giving them their publicity.
I've read some of the comments above and yeah - the shotgun could be loaded, yes the threat is ever present etc etc
But no - no don't start calling these imbeciles terrorists, did anyone queuing for a plane in Glasgow a hundred yards from where the "car bomb" went off, look terrified or even vaguely worried, no they looked pissed off and aggravated
The simple fact is that these guys are incompetent - I've seen a gas cylinder go off in a fire once (an outdoor catering van caught fire at a gig I was working at). After at least 5 minutes of intense fire (fat encrusted wood being in abundance), it went boom, took off like a rocket and landed in a field half a mile away where we found it the next day. The fire crew who attended were actually surprised as this doesn't normally happen and no one was hurt (no utensils through eyes al-la Hollywood or anything).
If a drunk chef with poor sanitary skills can achieve a better boom than you then calling you a terrorist is stretching it, and is dangerous as it virtually begs people to call for tighter measures and more security. I love my country as it is - I don't WANT a police state, the terrorists do - they hate our freedom after all!
Please could we calm down, turn off the flashing 'critical' batbeacon, Stop having 'COBRA' meetings about 2 cases of unsafe petrol storage in London and 1 bonfire in Glasgow, and start discussing something that might actually make people in this country safe from the things which really DO kill people (less guns in London would be a good place to start....)
"Personally, I am probably unique out of those posting here, in that I have had first hand experiance of terrorism. I had walked past one of the Warrington bombs (the one on Bridge street) in 1993 a few moments before it went off."
I'm glad you survived. I'm not glad we both have any such experience. But no, unique you are not I'm sad to say.
Interestingly Prime Minister Brown did make some comment about the British way of life not being changed by the events of the weekend. So seeing as liberty is a fundamental cornerstone of the fabric of our 'way of life', that's the ID card gone, more cameras gone, detention gone, permanent retention of personal records gone.........
Fat Chance!
Creating an effective explosion is easy. Ask any schoolboy reasonably well versed in physics and chemistry (oh wait, is that still a possibility in the UK?). In my school (back in the '60's since you ask) it was something of a rite of passage for some one to occasionally blow manhole covers up into the air or drawers across the chem lab. These muppets clearly didn't have a clue, as so many others here have indicated. (Yes, check the youtube links).
That they're incompetent dipshits is neither here nor there. They achieved critical mass with the hysterical press and talking-head authorities sounding off, with minimal investigation or evidence, about how hundreds of lives 'could' have been at risk. The point here, as others have said, it that it's irrational comments like this that really help no one. No one's denying that there could have been serious injury or loss of life but the extent would have been far less than the 72 point headlines would have you believe.
Any loss of life due to these murderous attackers (I can't call them terrorists - they're murderers, they kill innocent people) is, of course, intolerable, but losing our liberty and democracy because the State deems it necessary 'to prevent terrorism' is equally, if not more so.
All those CCTV cameras that the authorities so proudly commented on, didn't PREVENT the incidents, nor any other incident to my knowledge. Only useful after the event, no denying their use then, but we keep being told that more surveillance will PREVENT attacks and criminality.
Didn't stop the killers of Jamie Bulger either...
Yes it's obvious they are complete pillocks who could have easily injured dozens or rubber-neckers standing about, but I doubt the massive loss of life they had envisiged. You still need to keep your eyes open and just report odd things like abandoned cars full of flammable material, if nothing else that to ensure no one gets badly burnt! Thanks for the article, a note of sanity over the crud that comes from the mass media.
There's a lot of bravado over this failed plot.
Do we know all the facts?
I seriously doubt it.
But what we do know is that someone tried to do something stupid with the intent to harm a lot of people.
Suicide "bombers" try to drive a flaming jeep/range rover in to an airport?
Sure, there's a lot of us who know far better ways to cause panic, havoc and terror. But the point is that we don't.
I personally view the article as having a cathartic effect. (A stupid article/vent and the BS starts to flow.)
Be thankful they weren't successful. We just got lucky. For all we know, they weren't trying to succeed but to test our responses to the threat.
The thing that galls me is the new home secretary trotting out the party line about the biggest sustained threat from terrorism... blah blah...
I cannot beleive we are being asked to forget the attrocities carries out by th IRA over many years. THAT was a real threat! I feel, as an ex member of her majesty's forces who has served in Northern Ireland, betrayed by the government on and it's seeming will to 'forget' the NI problems and all the dead soldiers and civilians.
Who here remembers the mortar attack on 10 downing street?, the bombing of the tory conference hotel? or the bombing in Hyde park? - not the government obviously!
I really wonder if El Reg is the only island of sanity ? Since BBC isn't.
Any hints appreciated, very much !
K`Tetch Dureek, I am so sorry to disappoint you. "Personally, I am probably unique out of those posting here" Not quite, welcome to the club. I was a mere few hundered meters away from La Belle disco, Berlin, in 1986, at just another entertainment. Hell, was that a thunder !
Did it scare the hell out of me ? No, it didn't.
The point of those talking about the ineffectiveness of these attempts at criminal damage is that "terrorism" has been made a bogeyman, something to fear. You defeat fear by laughing at it and not allowing it to rule your life.
Terrorism is ineffective. It will not win a war. It will not cause substantial long term physical harm. Yes, people may die, and we can empathise with those they leave behind. But all that terrorists are trying to do is to make you give up. And we, here in the west, are giving up. Giving up basic liberties that our societies are founded on. Giving up our attitudes of openness, and the respect for other people's beliefs. The terrorists are winning by changing us.
Well, I won't change.
Anyone read the book pandora's clock? For the uninitiated, it's about a 'terrorist' plot contracted by the US government to wipe out a plane-load of tourists on a charge of a viral infection, and then blame it on a then unknown group of islamic terrorists.
Sounds somewhat familiar to the current thing. I've always been a bit suspicious of the notion of Al-qaeda, but hyping up a story about bombs that failed to detonate does not help the overly sensitive section of the population who will get scared silly now at any parked car they don't recognise. In Iraq this thing happens far more often with far more deadly consequences. If we get afraid of things like this, as some people do, we've let anyone who has a notion of being a terrorist win because they've terrorised us by *failing*.
What I've heard so far is that at least two of these putative terrorists were trained physicians who you would think would know enough about science to make a functioning bomb. Maybe their intent, for whatever reason, was to make a non-functioning bomb and at least make a visible attempt at terrorism with out actually hurting anybody. Or at least with minimal impact. Seems far-fetched, I know, but so is the whole Jihad thing.
If people don't understand 9/11 and the function of terrorism, they won't understand today's carbomb.
There are many troubling questions about 9/11. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself and prove me wrong.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1921357139285191482
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2602704786128880796
Rather than deal with the symptons how about somebody actually deals with the causes? War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, problems in the Middle East, these need to be resolved quickly.
Al-Qaeda is a convenient label to attach onto any "islamist" inspired attack. "Political Islam" has a phenomena has its roots in the failure of democracy and former US and western policies in Muslim lands, way back to World War I
I think we need to wait for the smoke to clear before we can really speculate, thankfully none of the people recently arrested were British
As a young British Asian (and Muslim) I feel alienated and have continued to do so for a number of years, today going through Liverpool Street station I was stopped several times by Policemen and people wanting to "check my oyster card" no doubt to download all the information about my wherabouts, I also happeend to see lots of Somali and Arab looking men having bags searched, its hysteria gone a bit too far.
Obviously terrorism in all forms is unacceptable but we need to put things into scale and context, after all we are not Americans
For the record, I personally have been standing within 10 feet of exactly these kind of cannisters when they have been on fire (or in fires, if you prefer)
More than once.
I am still alive and have all my arms and legs.
Threat level critical, my hairy arse. As described by Mr Green, this is nothing more than a prepubescent boy's wank fantasy, which is why most gas canisters are 'blown up' by, erm, pre pubescent boys.
And I'll be quite comfortable, should the occasion arise, to a) stand that close to another such device or b) explain to the mourning relatives why it's not OK for the government to rape my civil liberties in order to prevent a couple of f**kwits managing to murder a couple of unfortunate passersby.
All the posters here agree that the people behind these attacks were incompetent. However, what I can't fathom is, if they were this incompetent... - why didn't they leave a trail that MI5 could spot?
Then again, look at the timing. This has handed the new PM a lovely chance to show his "Iron" character.
Perhaps our 'protectors' were aware, but decided not to intervene until the threat was "undeniable"?
BUT!!! Our security services would never risk the safety of the public, surely!
Oh hang on a second... everyone agrees that they didn't did they?
Many English people grew up in cities that occasionally had bombs go off in them as part of the IRA's campaign, so the fact that the terrorists explicitly cite Islam as their motivator (instead of Roman Catholicism being the differentiator) is not that interesting as the justification of murderous bastards is seldom interesting.
If you look at the murder rates for Europe and the USA, and compare c. 300 million Americans with 12,658 murders to c.300 million Europeans with c. 5,000 murders (Source; nationmaster.com), it is clear that terrorists in Europe would have to kill twice as many people as were killed in 9/11 every year to make Europe as violent and dangerous a place as America.
Those two facts go a long way to explain attitudes.
The fact the last two terrorist attempts in the UK have been laughable just adds bemusement or amusement to indifference.
I know one shouldn't, but the idea of a guy getting himself severely burned whilst trying to kill people and then spending the rest of his life in jail is rather droll. Instead of the virgins he faces the knowledge no women COULD ever find him attractive again, not that it matters as he'll never be alone with one ever again...
These latest "attacks" on our cities are no more than staged event that's being used to force through changes in our statute. Real terrorists determined to cause panic and destruction would attempt something with more of a lasting impact such as poisoning the water supply. They would be able to make a clean getaway and the devastation could be phenomenal.
Anyone, including you could print and laminate your very own MI6 agent badge, approach a group of foreign students asking them to take part in a counter-terrorist simulation. Just ask them if they fancy earning £1000 for a day's work helping the security services on a counter terrorist training operation. Remind them that it's TOP SECRET. Give them a backpack full of chapatti flour, some train tickets to London and tell them they are playing in a giant game of hide and seek. For your next trick, try giving some guys a car full of gas canisters and tell them to drop it off at the airport. Don't forget to drain the brake fluid first so they crash into the barriers.
If you want to know who is behind these events, then ask who stands to gain from them. That's what the police always do when investigating a criminal act, as it invariably leads straight to the culprit.
While the police are chasing around after their so-called doctors of death, we should be looking for the changes to the laws that the govt. are making. Since the 7/7 events, they gave themselves the power to stop and search. They can arrest anyone and keep them imprisoned for 48 hours without charge while they ascertain identity. Scariest of all, they have blurred the definition between a criminal and a terrorist.
For anyone who welcomes this encroaching police state then please help the authorities by surrendering all your rights to free speech, freedom, fairness and privacy. For Thomas C Greene and the rest of us – it's time to speak out and refuse to give away our basic human rights.
Incompetent maybe. Does the author have access to forensic evidence? You don't know what else these 'bombs' contained and I'm certain security services wouldn't reveal that sort of information.
Ever heard of a fuel air burst or a fuel low airburst?
You are the scary buggers here!
If the secret services wanted to scare us they would just go out and kill a bunch of us.
Go get a life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon
Sometimes the people who rule us do entertain crazy plans.
"Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS),"
Back in the 60's the Joint Chiefs (I think that’s because they smoked a lot of hashish) cooked up an idea to have a civilian flight full of vacationing collage students (dummy) shot down (by our own forces) on it's way to Cuba and claim it sent out a mayday about a Cuban MIG and that it was what shot it down.
Another plan was to attack one of our own naval ships with a full crew, kill them all and blame the Cubans. The idea was Americans would step right in line because Navy personal were lost. As a second option (notice it was not the first or only option) they suggested maybe using a dummy ship might work, but with no service men dead, it would look fishy. So then they say to create fake military personnel and then insult/desecrate Arlington by having fake funerals for fake soldiers who were fake killed to justify a war.
Another idea was to kill boatloads of Cuban refugees (wow talk about kicking people who are down), so much for "Give us your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.".
From the book "Body of Secrets"
"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories like "the CIA did 9/11" (but if anyone can show proof I will listen) but this does sound a bit like recent events.
Evil is not something strictly in the hearts of our enemies, we all have the capacity. What makes the difference is a person’s ability to not act on those impulses or view those ideas as good.
I'm sure these people sitting in places of power had/have "good intentions".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
