Infant Jehadist: Baby Suicide Bomber Plot Uncovered

SteveGrenard

Philosopher
S
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
5,528
Just when you think you've seen it all...


Keelty shocked at suicide-baby bomb plot
From AAP and The Daily Telegraph
August 14, 2006 09:14am

AUSTRALIA'S top police officer has described an alleged plan to use a baby in the foiled British terror bombing plot as a chilling development.

But Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty has backed away from tougher security measures at airports, saying the idea of testing infant's milk before air travel should be left up to regulators.

Scotland Yard police are questioning a husband and wife who allegedly planned to hide a liquid bomb in their baby's bottle to bring down an airliner.

They are among the 23 suspects arrested over the plot to blow up airliners headed for the United States in mid-flight.

Click to expand...


More at:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20115941-2,00.html


and

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012664.php


 
It's amazing and disheartening the lengths that fanatics will go just to hurt innocent people.

I wonder though . . . if the baby died in the blast or the wreckage, would he still get the 72 virgins or would they be put into some sort of heavenly trust fund until he was old enough? :)
 
Last edited:
Mephisto said:
It's amazing and disheartening the lengths that fanatics will go just to hurt innocent people.

I wonder though . . . if the baby died in the blast or the wreckage, would he still get the 79 virgins or would they be put into some sort of heavenly trust fund until he was old enough?
Click to expand...

..........................
Sir Henry Morgan wrote:
What on earth did the parents suppose a six months old baby would do with 72 virgins for the rest of eterninty?
...............
Someone asked a similar question in another post and I mentioned the "Mohammed Dura Kiddie Paradise", complete with ferris wheels and kite-flying. I'm afraid this little baby would be too young even for this. I guess his Paradise would just have warm milk, a warm blankie, and a mother who won't cut up his little head with a machete. (this last is a referrence to the the sick Shiite practice of cutting up babies' heads with knives and razors at the Remembrance of Muharram).
Click to expand...


Monsters.


from responses at jihadwatch,URL in OP.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012664.php
 
Last edited:
Amazing! And the Spanish Conquistadores thought the Mayan were barbaric for ritually flattening the foreheads of babies. We've come a long way, haven't we?
 
Mephisto said:
Amazing! And the Spanish Conquistadores thought the Mayan were barbaric for ritually flattening the foreheads of babies. We've come a long way, haven't we?
Click to expand...


Yes Spaniards were definately the opitimy of civility. :)
 
Mephisto said:
I wonder though . . . if the baby died in the blast or the wreckage, would he still get the 72 virgins or would they be put into some sort of heavenly trust fund until he was old enough? :)
Click to expand...


Um hello... they need to get the 72 virgins from somewhere, don't they? Only the MEN get the virgins. Everyone else gets to BE the virgins.

-Andrew
 
Brother and Sister Skeptics(Sceptics)

Doesn't anyone have any trouble with the attributions from the original article. An Aussie police official, talking about someone being QUESTIONED in the UK, and no confirmation other than similar articles from Australia?
What's happened since the date of the article, Aug 12? Wouldn't one of us have heard something further? We've been through the "let's print every rumor possible" scenario after 9/11. In fact many of us fight the CTers because we know that there were dozens of such oral histories reprinted as factual articles right after the attacks in New York and Washington.


I think the jury is still out until there's something more concrete. I've done a scan of news articles from England over the past five days and see no reference to this, anywhere. But, I'm not the world's greatest web-surfer, so I welcome any evidence.

Further - Jihadwatch??? A little too rabid for my tastes. I thought the BNP was the sort of lunatic fringe of the English political system. The postings on there are replete with support for BNP. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I've done a scan of news articles from England over the past five days and see no reference to this, anywhere.
Click to expand...

Reference to what - the plot? There does appear to have been a bomb plot that involved a substance resembling or concealed by baby milk. Or to the baby part? One of the plotters certainly had a baby, because she was trying to get out of custody to look after her (right before she was charged, in fact). It does seem likely that if you were taking baby milk aboard a flight then you'd be bringing baby with you as cover. So it doesn't seem to be that amazing a claim. Well, it's amazing that someone would do it, I suppose, but taking the astonishing mindset as a whole it fits together.
 
richardm said:
Reference to what - the plot? There does appear to have been a bomb plot that involved a substance resembling or concealed by baby milk. Or to the baby part? One of the plotters certainly had a baby, because she was trying to get out of custody to look after her (right before she was charged, in fact). It does seem likely that if you were taking baby milk aboard a flight then you'd be bringing baby with you as cover. So it doesn't seem to be that amazing a claim. Well, it's amazing that someone would do it, I suppose, but taking the astonishing mindset as a whole it fits together.
Click to expand...

Further digging, and the woman in question, it seems, as of the filing of charges, is charged with failing to report the plot, not being one of the terrorists. I'm looking for info on whether her husband is one of the plotters. If I locate it, I'll post. I'm not saying that she/they aren't capable of doing this sort of thing. We all know that their values are skewed to Hell and back.

My point was that the article cited was from the 12th. That's about 48 hours after the news originally hit. Then nothing until the charges are laid, and when the charges are laid - she's not charged with conspiring but "failing to report". Might that be because at this juncture they haven't enough evidence to charge her with something larger? Sure. But are the police known to also sometimes charge people because they caught them in the net and feel they have to? Equally, "Sure." I'm not defending her or them; I'm supporting my right to withold judgment until I've seen better evidence.

I lived through and watched 9/11 live, and lost a few friends and acquaintances that day. In fact, my graduation from lurker to poster here was due to the work(s) of the likes of Gravy and Gumboot in derailing the CT idiots. And, in those first days and weeks after 9/11 it suited me just fine, emotionally, to jump on any rumor or urban legend (the stock maneuvers of the airlines being the first I recall). I wanted to believe it was something more than simply the fact that there was now a person or group of persons who had the will to perform such acts. It just HAD TO BE something bigger.

There were hundreds of apocryphal stories after 9/11. Many proved false, quite a few proved true. I'm just accustomed to the 9/11 threads where everyone at JREF repeatedly asks,.... "Evidence?". A one-off news article and a cross-reference to a neo-cryptic right wing blog/site isn't really evidence.

Leaping to conclusions too quickly was a passion of mine. Lurking and now engaging at JREF has taught me to look at the sources, and with all the cross-checking I could do, all I could see was an article commenting in turn on the comment of an Aussie cop, about a woman who was under suspicion (not yet charged) in England. I'd like to see the whole story before I leap to conclusions. It makes great email fodder, but this is exactly how some of the really nonsensical 9/11 myths gained credibility.
 
Last edited:
Don't be surprised if you are outside the UK and find stories regarding the ongoing cases that are not reported or repeated in the British media. The British media has to be careful of "contempt of court" since people have been charged and are waiting trial. Indeed some USA Internet sites (such as the New York Times) are blocking certain articles to people from the UK because of this issue.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Brother and Sister Skeptics(Sceptics)

Doesn't anyone have any trouble with the attributions from the original article. An Aussie police official, talking about someone being QUESTIONED in the UK, and no confirmation other than similar articles from Australia?
What's happened since the date of the article, Aug 12? Wouldn't one of us have heard something further? We've been through the "let's print every rumor possible" scenario after 9/11. In fact many of us fight the CTers because we know that there were dozens of such oral histories reprinted as factual articles right after the attacks in New York and Washington.


I think the jury is still out until there's something more concrete. I've done a scan of news articles from England over the past five days and see no reference to this, anywhere. But, I'm not the world's greatest web-surfer, so I welcome any evidence.

Further - Jihadwatch??? A little too rabid for my tastes. I thought the BNP was the sort of lunatic fringe of the English political system. The postings on there are replete with support for BNP. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
Click to expand...


1. This is not just any Australian Police Official. He is the equivalent of the Director of the FBI in the US or Scotland Yard in the UK.

2.It would not be surprising that he was briefed on the ongoing plot and arrests in Great Britain and is privy to information concerning this.

3. The fact that beyond this report from Australia there was nothing mentioned in the British media is not unusual. Disturbing perhaps but not unusual as the British may want to keep pre-judicial speculation to a minimum whereas the head of Australian law enforcement has a right to be shocked and bowed over by this revelation and obviously didn't care about leaking this to the press in his country.

4. Jihadwatch gets its information from original sources as it did in this case. You can easily skip their rhetoric and check the source which in this case agrees with it. I provided both URLs. I am sorry you feel it is rabid. Perhaps it appears that way to you because of the rabid nature of the jihad on which it reports.

5. The announcement that baby formula may be banned or inspected very closely in connection with the liquid bombers plot certainly indicates that a baby would be used to justify bringing a bottle of formula on board an aircraft which would be a disguise for a liquid bomb. Sealed cans of formula only was one of the suggestions I have seen. Such measures certainly indicate that the British investigators found the use of an infant or young child to carry through this bombing plot was more than mere speculation.

When parents dress up their babies in I Love Aqueda hats and place placards in their prams calling for the death of anyone who insults the prophet it is apparent they don't need or want apologies on their behalf.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Don't be surprised if you are outside the UK and find stories regarding the ongoing cases that are not reported or repeated in the British media. The British media has to be careful of "contempt of court" since people have been charged and are waiting trial. Indeed some USA Internet sites (such as the New York Times) are blocking certain articles to people from the UK because of this issue.
Click to expand...

But this story was all over the front of the British Sunday papers a few weeks ago. If I recall correctly, they named a young married couple (both early twenties and unemployed) and their baby. That's all the detail I can recall but it was certainly a big story here.
 
SteveGrenard said:
4. Jihadwatch gets its information from original sources as it did in this case. You can easily skip their rhetoric and check the source which in this case agrees with it. I provided both URLs. I am sorry you feel it is rabid. Perhaps it appears that way to you because of the rabid nature of the jihad on which it reports.
Click to expand...

Point 1,2, Hmm? Acceptable. Point 3 Agreed - my ignorance, and pointed out by a couple of others. Point 5 Apparently fact-based. None of these four, however do anything to tell me that I should rush to judgment until we get the full story. I'll wait to see what plays out. I do not support the fanatics but I like to know the truth.

Point 4, quoted in full above: Sorry. Doesn't float. You posted two links. One to the news article and then another to Jihadwatch, which linked back TO YOUR PREVIOUS LINK. Why? Further, you then quoted a poster from the same site. I assume then that the site itself was what you wanted us to see, since you can obviously find and post credible newspaper links with no difficulty. Why would you use such a scurrilous site as your link to a genuine news article (that you had already given the link for).

I gleaned the following suggestions from the enlightened posters on Jihadistwatch:
  • 5% of Muslims are terrorists - the other 95% are in on it but won't speak up
  • Deport All Muslims From UK.
  • Ban All Muslims From Flying, "until the end of time".
  • Ban All Muslims From All Airports (Gonna be tough in Dubai, I guess)

And here's a choice piece of logic from one of their learned scribes.
Rabid dogs do not deserve rewards for behaving....they deserve to be put to sleep.

Iran, North Korea, Hamas, Al Queda, Hezzbullah, not necessarily in that order....I'll quote Nike.

JUST DO IT!
Click to expand...

Your final item:
When parents dress up their babies in I Love Aqueda hats and place placards in their prams calling for the death of anyone who insults the prophet it is apparent they don't need or want apologies on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lovely picture, that. And proving what? That there are asshats in the world? Well, I'm gobsmacked! But the fact that there are SOME Muslims willing to accept and even promote such anti-human idiocy is not sufficient to push me over the edge like the lunatic fringe that populates Jihadistwatch.
 
Calling this a baby suicide bomber seems unneccesarily emotional on so many levels. For one reason, babies can't commit suicide. Also, the baby is no way being presented as a "suicide bomber" like those pictures you sometimes see being circulated around. More significantly, if the bomb had gone off, there's probably a good chance that babies would've died anyway. Is it really worse that the terrorists were willing to bring another on board?

Terrorists kill full-grown people in substantial quantities. Tossing in a baby here or there is just a flourish in the grand scheme of things.
 
UserGoogol said:
Calling this a baby suicide bomber seems unneccesarily emotional on so many levels. For one reason, babies can't commit suicide. Also, the baby is no way being presented as a "suicide bomber" like those pictures you sometimes see being circulated around. More significantly, if the bomb had gone off, there's probably a good chance that babies would've died anyway. Is it really worse that the terrorists were willing to bring another on board?

Terrorists kill full-grown people in substantial quantities. Tossing in a baby here or there is just a flourish in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Normal parental instinct is to preserve your children at all costs. The abhorrent thing here is that apparently the desire to kill random people is strong enough to overcome that instinct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom