Hijacking attempt in sweden

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This sort of US bashing is getting just as silly as the inaccuracies in reporting.<span id='postcolor'>

Possibly. It is just a theory of mine and I have no proof at all. On the other hand it wouldn't be the first time...

One thing is clear: you don't go to reuters and accuse somebody of terrorism unless you have an agenda. You can ask yourself then: who profits most from such misinformation?

Swedish intelligence services? Hardly - it only makes them look like dolts who can't keep anything secret.

British media perhaps. Or the US.

[Guest]

So far two Swedish politicians have made statements:

[*] Opposition leader Bo Lundgren, who knows nothing but likes to give the image like he knows said that "things are discussed in the media that shouldn't have been published at all"

[*] Agne Hansson, a riksdagsman (i.e congressmen) that has been briefed by the department of justice and has a chair in the national security committee said that "there has been no information that would suggest that the suspect was planning to crash the airplane into a US embassy.

The relevance of this? Well, politicians are known to be more willing to compromise national security then being fould lying directly to the public. This kind of rules out SÄPO since they report to riksdagen (the congress).

There is still a possibility that MUST is involved somehow, but not very likely.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 31 2002,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reuters claims that it was SÄPO who gave that information to them.<span id='postcolor'>

This Reuters article says the source is "a highly-placed intelligence source" and not SAPO.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*] The US wants to get their hands on the suspect -(better safe then sorry method) - so they leak indirectly information of a terrorist plot. This would be intended as lubrication of the Swedish people so they don't complain if USA manages to get the Swedish government to extradite the suspect.<span id='postcolor'>

If Sweden finds that the only crime commited was carrying a handgun, on what basis could the US ask for extradition?

And if Sweden concludes there were indeed plans to hit an American target, the criminal was caught in Sweden and would be tried there. So, again, how could the US ask for extradition?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 31 2002,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reuters claims that it was SÄPO who gave that information to them.<span id='postcolor'>

This Reuters article says the source is "a highly-placed intelligence source" and not SAPO.<span id='postcolor'>

Yesterday, it was first "military intelligence source" then it was "a highly placed source within the Swedish security police, SÄPO". They have changed that now, but still have some references:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"There is nothing to suggest that this is al Qaeda," one Sapo security police source told Reuters. "It's more likely that they are some kind of 'wannabes'." <span id='postcolor'>

+ "a highly-placed intelligence source" means SÄPO. There is no alternative. If it had been MUST they would be saying military intelligence, and they have nothing to do with terrorism and terrorism investigations. It is SÄPO jurisdiction.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if Sweden concludes there were indeed plans to hit an American target, the criminal was caught in Sweden and would be tried there. So, again, how could the US ask for extradition?<span id='postcolor'>

Not the first time

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">+ "a highly-placed intelligence source" means SÄPO.<span id='postcolor'>

How about a secretary in SAPO or one in a pol's office or a pol him/her-self on a security or military givernment commitee?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,16:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if Sweden concludes there were indeed plans to hit an American target, the criminal was caught in Sweden and would be tried there. So, again, how could the US ask for extradition?<span id='postcolor'>

Not the first time<span id='postcolor'>

In these cases, we're talking about the 9/11 attack, a crime which occurred on US soil.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,16:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if Sweden concludes there were indeed plans to hit an American target, the criminal was caught in Sweden and would be tried there. So, again, how could the US ask for extradition?<span id='postcolor'>

Not the first time<span id='postcolor'>

In these cases, we're talking about the 9/11 attack, a crime which occurred on US soil.<span id='postcolor'>

Further, if it were not mainly for the death penalty problem, Europe would not object to the extraditions in several cases.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">+ "a highly-placed intelligence source" means SÄPO.<span id='postcolor'>

How about a secretary in SAPO or one in a pol's office or a pol him/her-self on a security or military givernment commitee?<span id='postcolor'>

Your point being?

If somebody in Sweden knows, it is SÄPO, since it is their responsibilty. If they don't know, then there is very little chance the leak being Swedish.

Note however that I am not ruling out Säpo as the source of the leak. They are indeed highly incompetent. At MUST we usually refer to them as "aphuset" meaning "monkey-house". It would not be the first time that they screw up an investigation.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,16<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,16:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Sep. 01 2002,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And if Sweden concludes there were indeed plans to hit an American target, the criminal was caught in Sweden and would be tried there. So, again, how could the US ask for extradition?<span id='postcolor'>

Not the first time<span id='postcolor'>

In these cases, we're talking about the 9/11 attack, a crime which occurred on US soil.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and if they link the suspect with AQ - don't you think that the US would want him?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Further, if it were not mainly for the death penalty problem, Europe would not object to the extraditions in several cases<span id='postcolor'>

And hence the need for lubrication of the Swedish public is needed...

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So far two Swedish politicians have made statements:

[*] Opposition leader Bo Lundgren, who knows nothing but likes to give the image like he knows said that "things are discussed in the media that shouldn't have been published at all"<span id='postcolor'>

well, isn't that pretty much all politicians?

i'm not keeping a good track on this incident, but here is some things that are known.

1.suspect had a loaded gun(thus Swedish airport's security is like America's )

2.he took some flight lesson long before, but flunked out.

considering that the flight school was taken more than 5 years ago, i doubt if he had any intention to hijack and ram buildings. if he was financed by AQ and ahd such intention, he would have done better job in preparation. i.e. taking weapons that are not detectable, unlike a loaded gun.

another thing i find curious is that how can you ram a plane into densely populated area. US embassies, AFAIK are in the urban area, and pinpointing them and ramming into them would be extremely hard.

also, although AQ accuses 'WEST' of corruption, they usually refer it as 'US'. and they have been consistently targeting US, not 'WEST'. so if AQ was going to hijack a Swedish airplane and use it like 9/11, theu surely would have known that that will work against them eventually. and for AQ, last thing they need is more enemy.

so, if there was a plan to ram the jet, then it probably came from his own ideas, or someone is trying to sell more papers.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 01 2002,19:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1.suspect had a loaded gun(thus Swedish airport's security is like America's    )<span id='postcolor'>

No. They stopped him in the airport security - in America they would have let him through

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">another thing i find curious is that how can you ram a plane into densely populated area. US embassies, AFAIK are in the urban area, and pinpointing them and ramming into them would be extremely hard.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. I was going to say that earlier but never got around to it. The whole concept of ramming the jet into a embassy is ridiculous. The plane was going to London, so why not perforate Big Ben or the Buckingham palace?

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes. I was going to say that earlier but never got around to it. The whole concept of ramming the jet into a embassy is ridiculous. The plane was going to London, so why not perforate Big Ben or the Buckingham palace?<span id='postcolor'>

Because that would be unthinkable!

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 01 2002,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes. I was going to say that earlier but never got around to it. The whole concept of ramming the jet into a embassy is ridiculous. The plane was going to London, so why not perforate Big Ben or the Buckingham palace?<span id='postcolor'>

Because that would be unthinkable!<span id='postcolor'>

was the destruction of the twin towers "thinkable" ?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 01 2002,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 01 2002,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes. I was going to say that earlier but never got around to it. The whole concept of ramming the jet into a embassy is ridiculous. The plane was going to London, so why not perforate Big Ben or the Buckingham palace?<span id='postcolor'>

Because that would be unthinkable!<span id='postcolor'>

was the destruction of the twin towers "thinkable" ?<span id='postcolor'>

I think he was joking in some weird British way

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,19:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Sep. 01 2002,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 01 2002,19:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 01 2002,19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes. I was going to say that earlier but never got around to it. The whole concept of ramming the jet into a embassy is ridiculous. The plane was going to London, so why not perforate Big Ben or the Buckingham palace?<span id='postcolor'>

Because that would be unthinkable!<span id='postcolor'>

was the destruction of the twin towers "thinkable" ?<span id='postcolor'>

I think he was joking in some weird British way <span id='postcolor'>

Correct. No offence intended.

[ran 0]

bitish humour ...........

[ralphwiggum 6]

hhmm..suddenly ran and Paratrooper storm in..and thread is going....spammarific.

[ran 0]

lol

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 01 2002,19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hhmm..suddenly ran and Paratrooper storm in..and thread is going....spammarific. <span id='postcolor'>

Anyway sorry, back on topic; do people think as I have heard said, that these attacks mark a build up to september the 11th?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 01 2002,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 01 2002,19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hhmm..suddenly ran and Paratrooper storm in..and thread is going....spammarific. <span id='postcolor'>

Anyway sorry, back on topic; do people think as I have heard said, that these attacks mark a build up to september the 11th?<span id='postcolor'>

attacks?

One guy with a gun in his bag?

Bleah!

I think this marks an increase in abject stupidity, not in possible terrorist activities.  Anyone thinking they might get a gun past the security in a european airport is just insane.  In Canada or the US, they might have slightly better luck, but still...

My bet is this guy is just a moron.  But because he is of the islamic faith, he MUST be a mean ole terrorist!    Right? This is the kind of knee jerk profiling that is just plain wrong.

If they can prove he was planning to hijack the AC, then put him in a cell. If not, slap him on the wrist for being stupid, and keep up the good work at the security check ins.

[Paratrooper 0]

Wider problem

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 01 2002,20:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wider problem<span id='postcolor'>

Read it.

there is nothing in there other than rampant speculation, and nothing in the way of proof.

This is exactly what is wrong with the media today. They will grab anything and run with it in whatever looks like a possible direction. No matter if they are right or wrong. Jornalistic integrity is becoming a serious oxymoron

[Guest]

We'll see tomorrow. They have to charge him with a crime or release him. Not the same rules as in Guatanamo bay