Talk:Police in Britain uncover suspected terrorist plot

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

They haven't claimed to have foiled it. They've claimed to have uncovered a plot. The security measures are because they aren't sure that they have foiled the overall plot. 09:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

agree with this. title needs changing

Claim "To state to be true, especially when open to question;" is it really open to question? Police in Britain have unconvered a terrorist attack.--Pearcec 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's an open question. There's no evidence that the UK government isn't just making all this up as terrorists themselves to bring Britain two steps closer to the Bush-Blair police state. Sadly, with an unreliable narrator, there's little assurance that evidence won't be fabricated after the fact either. zuzu 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Police in Britain claim to have uncovered a terrorist attack is better maybe. Specialops 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

August 2006 Ryan524 (Talk | contribs) m (Police in Britain claim to have uncovered a terrorist plane plot moved to Police in Britain uncovered a suspected terrorist plot: i feel the old title gives the impression that they may have not uncovered anything, so i renamed it to better commun) Umm... still no evidence other than a handful of arrests (who could be anyone, and are only held on suspicion), afaik. Why is the title now so certain a actual plot was uncovered? Also, the loss of "plane" from the title obscures the nature of the event. zuzu 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, it makes no sense to "uncover a suspicion". zuzu 18:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the page name be "Police in Britain uncover a suspected terrorist plot"? The current use of past tense seems odd and out of place for a news headline. 11:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

NOT British Airways decision to ban hand luggage[edit]

All airlines departing from UK airports have been instructed to prohibit hand luggage

I'll update the main page when I have a source

Chrisboote 10:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

maybe BA made the decision independently? dunno. Specialops 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Raid photo added[edit]

Not from the live raid, which would have been around noonish ;-) But this was literally a couple of hundred metres from my house. I saw police gathering as I was on my way to work this morning, around 9:15am. The photo is from this evening at 7:30pm. - David Gerard 19:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to ask for details from what little I saw as eyewitness reports, ask away (and ask quickly). Arkady Rose also got photos of the helicopters overhead around noonish, the time of the actual raid, and I'll upload any of those that look suitable as well and ask her about everything she saw too. - David Gerard 19:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

needs summary[edit]

it does. Doldrums 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Break up "plot details"[edit]

"Plot details" needs to be broken up into:

  1. What authorities have done.
  2. What the supposed plot would have been carried out.
    1. Liquid/Sprengel explosive, such as MEKP inside the false bottom of a drink container to be ignited by a portable electronic device such as a disposable camera capacitor/flash or ipod battery, etc.)
      1. Acetone peroxide - It has perhaps sprung into notoriety due to its alleged use in the July 2005 London bombings and has also been reported as the explosive favored by suspects arrested on August 10, 2006 who intended to destroy airplanes flying from the United Kingdom to the United States.[1]
    2. According to BBC World News television, a high-explosive chemistry expert they contacted demonstrated combining Methyl nitrate with another "secret" compound in a 35mm film canister which, when ignited with electrical spark, created a blast powerful enough to blow a coin-sized hole through a sheet of steel. zuzu 22:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    3. Andrew Sullivan thinks it could be Mubtakkar[2] zuzu 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

zuzu 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Meanwhile, today a couple hundred Americans will die from Alzheimers; three hundred from accidents; 1,500 from cancer and nearly 2,000 from heart disease. The death toll due to cancer and heart disease together amount to roughly a September 11th every 19 hours.[3]

Relevant in terms of giving the occasion perspective. As if lives at risk are somehow more valuable when they're all huddled together in a plane cabin than separately in hospital beds. zuzu 19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "Relevence" (sic) items are something for an editorial, you can find plenty of places to put such things, but speculation like that or comparison like that does not fit with Wikinews' Neutral Point of View policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Spell-check noted. :) zuzu 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have an Idea![edit]

Let's change the name of the article! Not once, not twice, but every few minutes. I think that is a swell idea. How 'bout you? --SVTCobra 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds awesome :D Let's go for it!

Terrorists' names[edit]

Should this nor read "Terrorist Suspects' names" as none of them have been convicted yet?

Yes it should. -- Arwel 14:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Or "alleged terrorist". zuzu 16:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that guys, my mistake too much in a hurry this morning. Ant ie 18:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Breaking news[edit]

why was the breaking news template removed? — 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it can't really be considered Breaking News after 36 hours. --+Deprifry+ 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also point out that now that the story is so old it should not be getting further edits. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't think we need a list of the potential liquid explosives on the page. Disseminating that information is irresponsible. Wikipedia should NOT be a how-to guide for would-be terrorists. 15:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Security through obscurity is no security at all. Keeping such information secret is more irresponsible because it prevents people from having the information to make appropriate precautions. The "would-be terrorists" will find out how to do this either way. zuzu 16:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and when looking at the latest w:USA Today it is apparent that they believe this also. They have a much more detailed list and information about what specifically needs to be done with the chemicals to make them work as a weapon. They even list the areas of airplanes that the bombs need to be placed in to be best effective.
That Guy, From That Show! 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My chemistry teacher at school told me how to make a variety of explosives, the lab assistant made sure we only got hold of the stuff to make the low-grade stuff. I can't remember how to make TNT, but it isn't seriously complicated chemistry. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Government officials have told"[edit]

For these quotes, can we get some names of actual individuals who can be held accountable in retrospect instead? Some of these quotes I think used to have names attached to them but were lost in editing, but I'll have to dig through the History to find out. zuzu 16:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Please to update the list of interwiki with this list:

[[ca:Projectes d'atemptats han sigut descoberts per la policia britànica]]
[[de:Terroranschlag in Großbritannien vereitelt]]
[[es:Policía británica afirma haber conjurado plan terrorista]]
[[fr:Projets d'attentats déjoués au Royaume-Uni]]
[[it:Sventati a Londra diversi attentati aerei]]
[[nl:Enorme terreuraanslagen op laatste moment voorkomen]]
[[pl:Udaremniono zamachy terrorystyczne na brytyjskich lotniskach]]
[[pt:Reino Unido e EUA em alerta por causa de ameaça de atentado terrorista]]

Thank you. --Trek00 07:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New edit[edit]

Category:Aviation, please Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Added. -- IlyaHaykinson 01:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)