Airline Plot - More Faked Terror?

[Sid Walker]

Thanks to the internet, occasional murmurs of doubt can quickly turn into a small chorus.

Was the latest "foiled terrorist plot" - the one that pushed the Lebanon debacle off the front pages for a couple of days prior to the cease fire - yet another faked terrorist scare?

Azzam Tamimi writes I bet you it will turn out to be a hoax in the Guardian

Craig Murray writes: The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?

The World Socialist website has an editorial entitled: Britain’s airline terror plot: Questions that need to be answered

From the blog world, The Gaelic Starover advises readers to “Be Very, Very Sceptical”

At some point, presumably, arrestees will come to trial - although the authorities can delay that day and at present there are restrictions on media reporting about the 'suspects'.

If the eventual court cases simply fall apart will anyone remember? Will the mass media follow-up this time round?

Or will it be like the fake ricin plot, a conveniently forgotten charade that helped disrupt the lives of a few innocents, kept agent provacteurs in employment and cranked the wheel of terror when it was needed (on that occasion, to help whip us into a frenzy and invade Iraq illegally, as I recall).

At least, in this case, no-one appears to have been killed - unlike the anthrax atrocities in 2001, timed perfectly to assist the smooth passage of the PATRIOT Act through Congress, in which several unsolved murders remain dispite clear Government indifference to pursuing a key suspect.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Sid, I dont know if you know, but the authorities have just been granted a further five days to question the suspects. What is particularly worrying is the high levels of anti Muslem feelings prevelant throughout the country at the moment. I dont pretend to know what the outcome of all this will be, but the cracks, and fissures that it is causing in civic society will, I predict, take decades to heal. As the old Chinese curse says, "May you live in interesting times." Steve.

[Ron Ecker]

It is claimed that the U.S. was eavesdropping on the terrorists (see, warrantless wiretapping is good!) and overheard the order "Do your attacks now," whereupon the U.S. quickly tipped off the British authorities (see, intelligence agencies cooperate!) who moved in with arrests.

Used to be that terrorists were careful in their communications, with code words like "the wedding" for an attack, but now they just say "Do your attacks now. Oops, I hope we're not being bugged."

This was the first indication to me that this alleged plot was hatched at Langley and/or the British equivalent, with the "Do your attacks now" line made up for laughs, in a brazen demonstration of the spooks' contempt for ordinary people's intelligence.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Sid Walker]

It is claimed that the U.S. was eavesdropping on the terrorists (see, warrantless wiretapping is good!) and overheard the order "Do your attacks now," whereupon the U.S. quickly tipped off the British authorities (see, intelligence agencies cooperate!) who moved in with arrests.

Used to be that terrorists were careful in their communications, with code words like "the wedding" for an attack, but now they just say "Do your attacks now. Oops, I hope we're not being bugged."

This was the first indication to me that this alleged plot was hatched at Langley and/or the British equivalent, with the "Do your attacks now" line made up for laughs, in a brazen demonstration of the spooks' contempt for ordinary people's intelligence.

Ron. This would be funny (if only it wasn't for real).

It reminds me of my childhood, when I would occasionally share a bath with my brother. Mum would yell out "do your backs now" from the kitchen.

In such a case these days, a passing neighbour with faulty hearing would naturally feel obliged call the anti-terror hotline. The offending family could expect to be profiled, bugged, infiltrated and arrested in a dawn raid, to enormous media fanfare.

No wonder "they hate us for our freedom".

Edited August 17, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Michael Hogan]

It is claimed that the U.S. was eavesdropping on the terrorists (see, warrantless wiretapping is good!) and overheard the order "Do your attacks now," whereupon the U.S. quickly tipped off the British authorities (see, intelligence agencies cooperate!) who moved in with arrests.

Used to be that terrorists were careful in their communications, with code words like "the wedding" for an attack, but now they just say "Do your attacks now. Oops, I hope we're not being bugged."

This was the first indication to me that this alleged plot was hatched at Langley and/or the British equivalent, with the "Do your attacks now" line made up for laughs, in a brazen demonstration of the spooks' contempt for ordinary people's intelligence.

Ron, I think you are exactly right.

Mike Hogan

[Len Colby]

The first thing I thought when I heard the news was “How convenient for Bush, Blair and Musharef”. Actually that was the third thing I though the first was “$hit! I got a plane to catch Sunday!”, the second was “how long till people start saying the whole thing was made up?”.

According to CNN http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12...plot/index.html and the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1842371,00.html and UPI http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...12-070103-3117r and the NY Daily News http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/442776p-372939c.html and CBS/AP http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/11/...in1889962.shtml and the Toronto Globe and Mail/AP http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/International and the CBC http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...an-arrests.html and over 25,000 other sources http://tinyurl.com/p8wg the message was coded. I guess you guys just missed that in your exhaustive research!!!

Len

[Steve Ulman]

It is claimed that the U.S. was eavesdropping on the terrorists (see, warrantless wiretapping is good!) and overheard the order "Do your attacks now," whereupon the U.S. quickly tipped off the British authorities (see, intelligence agencies cooperate!) who moved in with arrests.

Used to be that terrorists were careful in their communications, with code words like "the wedding" for an attack, but now they just say "Do your attacks now. Oops, I hope we're not being bugged."

This was the first indication to me that this alleged plot was hatched at Langley and/or the British equivalent, with the "Do your attacks now" line made up for laughs, in a brazen demonstration of the spooks' contempt for ordinary people's intelligence.

From the My WebpageGuardian, UK 8th and 9th paragraph:

The arrests in Britain followed the detention of terrorist suspects in Pakistan, it is believed, within the past fortnight. According to some government sources, after the arrests a message was sent to the suspected terror cells in Britain telling them: "Do your attacks now." In effect, it was a "go" order to the British bombers.

According to these sources, the message was intercepted and decoded by either British or US intelligence in the past 72 hours, spurring counterterrorism officials to intensify the investigation against the alleged plotters.

"intercepted and decoded" was included in several of the articles posted by Len including CBS News and CBC .

FYI "intercepted and decoded" means the message wasn't sent in the clear.

Maybe you should actually read and understand articles before making up your mind.

[Sid Walker]

I should make it clear that I have no idea whether the Crown will be able to prove its case in a fair trial - if and when the case of this latest batch of "terrorist suspect" arrestees comes to court.

I imagine that sooner or later western spook agencies will intercept a 'genuine', 'Islamist' terror plot that has not been largely contrived by their own agent provacateurs. For all I know, that could have occured in this case. I doubt it, but one must retain an open mind while the only information available is highly controlled factoid tidbits, washed down with copious amounts of spin and froth from self-styled terrorist experts whose regular appearances in the mass media have become a staple of modern life.

My real concern is about accountability - and the lack thereof.

When the ricin plot trial fell apart - and the ricin plot scare was found to have been essentially fraudulent - who was held to account?

Which of the politicians who used the ricin scare to make a case for something else (Colin Powell and the Iraq invasion springs to mind) admitted their error?

Which of the 'intelligence operatives' and/or police who had essentially pursued a phoney case were held to account?

Which of the commentators who had helped promote and explicate the scare later admitted publicly that they'd misled the public?

Which of the media oragnisations that uncritically promoted the story issued a mea culpa?

Did any of those involved get fired?

This is the real terror of the modern era: the palpable lack of accountability for heinous crimes, made possible by a mass media subject to a high level of clandestine collusion and control.

It's a phenomenon that doubtless pre-dates the JFK assassination - but it sure as hell gained momentum after a gang of vicious criminals murdered the President of the USA in broad daylight and get away with it for over 40 years through deceit, manipulation and yet more murder.

.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Ron Ecker]

"intercepted and decoded" was included in several of the articles posted by Len including CBS News and CBC .

FYI "intercepted and decoded" means the message wasn't sent in the clear.

Maybe you should actually read and understand articles before making up your mind.

The statement that the message was intercepted and "decoded" doesn't tell me crap. Decoded from what? The Al Qaeda Code? The British Muslim Code? The Da Vinci Code? Or do the spooks have a machine now, like the one used to break Japanese and Nazi codes in WWII, where some kind of Arabic doubletalk or talk of "big weddings" can be fed into the machine, and out comes "Do your attacks now"?

Believe what you want. I don't believe anything the U.S. government says about anything, and why should I? This may have been a real bonafide terrorist plot in which Western governments had no complicity, but I would need someone besides the U.S. and British governments (qui bono?) to convince me.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Should anyone doubt the British military secret service's (MI5, MI6) ability and willingness to conduct a false flag terror campaign, I would suggest some prudent research into their role in "The troubles" Northern Ireland 1969-1995 as a crash course in learning about perfidious Albion.

irelandsown.net/monaghanbomb.htmlis a good place to start. Did military intelligence start the latest terror panic? dont know, are they capable, more than, if it suits their wider purpose.

[Sid Walker]

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible? in The Register takes a look at the feasibility of what's been claimed by the authorities - and gives the plot the thumbs down.

If the author's scientific analysis is correct, the huddled masses waiting in endless queues while their water bottles are confiscated are simply wasting their time.

Fox, CNN and the rest of the mass media scrum suggest, with increasing repetition, the case for passenger 'profiling'. Irate passengers are interviewed. On cue, they exclaim "something must be done!"

Thus the bogus 'War on Terror' comes another step closer to the full-blown 'War on Moslems and Arabs' intended all along by those who dreamed up this cavalcade of scares, hype and false flag murders.

Footnote: an earlier article in The Register, in similar vein, debunked another fake terror plot:

Three men were last week cleared of charges after one of the global war on terror's more ludicrous trials. They had been accused of an imaginary plot to produce an imaginary radioactive 'dirty' bomb using an imaginary substance. Imagination throughout proceedings was greatly aided by the efforts of Mazher Mahmood, the imaginary "fake sheikh" who produces scoops for the News of the World, which has been known to imagine itself a newspaper.

It's all in the mind, really

Edited August 20, 2006 by Sid Walker

[Sid Walker]

The Liquid Bomb Hoax: The Larger Implications

by James Petras

The charges leveled by the British, US and Pakistani regimes that they uncovered a major bomb plot directed against nine US airlines is based on the flimsiest of evidence, which would be thrown out of any court, worthy of its name.

An analysis of the current state of the investigation raises a series of questions regarding the governments’ claims of a bomb plot concocted by 24 Brits of Pakistani origin.

The arrests were followed by the search for evidence, as the August 12, 2006 Financial Times states: “The police set about the mammoth task of gathering evidence of the alleged terrorist bomb plot yesterday.” (FT, August 12/, 2006) In other words, the arrests and charges took place without sufficient evidence -- a peculiar method of operation -- which reverses normal investigatory procedures in which arrests follow the “monumental task of gathering evidence.” If the arrests were made without prior accumulation of evidence, what were the bases of the arrests?

The government search of financial records and transfers turned up no money trail despite the freezing of accounts. The police search revealed limited amounts of savings, as one would expect from young workers, students and employees from low-income immigrant families.

The British government, backed by Washington, claimed that the Pakistani government’s arrest of two British-Pakistanis provided “critical evidence” in uncovering the plot and identifying the alleged terrorist. No Western judicial hearing would accept evidence procured by the Pakistani intelligence services that are notorious for their use of torture in extracting ‘confessions’. The Pakistani dictatorship’s evidence is based on a supposed encounter between a relative of one of the suspects and an Al Qaeda operative on the Afghan border. According to the Pakistani police, the Al Qaeda agent provided the relative and thus the accused with the bomb-making information and operative instructions. The transmission of bomb-making information does not require a trip half-way around the world, least of all to a frontier under military siege by US led forces on one side and the Pakistani military on the other. Moreover it is extremely dubious that Al Qaeda agents in the mountains of Afghanistan have any detailed knowledge of specific British airline security, procedures or conditions of operations in London. Lacking substantive evidence, Pakistani intelligence and their British counterparts touched all the propaganda buttons: A clandestine meeting with Al Qaeda, bomb-making information exchanges on the Pakistani-Afghan border, Pakistani-Brits with Islamic friends, family and terrorist connections in England . . .

US intelligence claimed, and London repeated, that sums of money had been wired from Pakistan to allow the plotters to buy airline tickets. Yet air tickets were found in only one residence (and the airline and itinerary were not stated by the police). None of the other suspects possessed plane tickets and some did not even have passports. In other words, the most preliminary moves in the so-called bomb plot had not been taken by the accused. No terrorist plot to bomb airplanes exists when the alleged conspirators are lacking travel funds, documents and tickets. It is not credible to argue that the alleged conspirators depended on instructions from distant handlers ignorant of the basic ground level conditions.

Initially the British and US authorities claimed that the explosive device was a “liquid bomb,” yet no liquid or non-liquid bomb was discovered on the premises or persons of any of the accused. Nor has any evidence been produced as to the capability of any of the suspects in making, moving or detonating the “liquid bomb” -- a very volatile solution if handled by unskilled operatives. No evidence has been presented on the nature of the specific liquid bomb question, or any spoken discussion or written documents about the liquid bomb, which would implicate any of the suspects. No bottle, liquid or chemical formula has been found among any of the suspects. Nor have any of the ingredients that go into making the “liquid bomb” been uncovered. Nor has any evidence been presented as to where the liquid was supposed to come from (the source) or whether it was purchased locally or overseas.

When the liquid bomb story was ridiculed into obscurity, British Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clark claimed that, “bomb making equipment including chemicals and electric components had been found,” (BBC News, 8/21/2006)

Once again there is no mention of what “electronic components” and “chemicals” were found, in whose home or office and if they might be related to non-bomb making activities. Were these so-called new bomb-making items owned by a specific person or group of persons, and if so were they known by the parties implicated to be part of a bombing plot. Moreover, when and why have the authorities switched from the liquid bombs to identifying old fashion electronic detonators? Is there any evidence -- documents or taped discussions -- that link these electronic detonators and chemicals with the specific plot to “blow up 9 US bound airliners”?

Instead of providing relevant facts clearing up basic questions of names, dates, weapons, and travel dates, Commissioner Clark gives the press a laundry list of items that could be found in millions of homes and the large number of buildings searched (69 so far). If stair climbing earns promotions, Clark should be nominated for a knighthood. According to Clark the police discovered more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones, 8,000 computer media items (items as catastrophic as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs); police removed 6,000 gigabytes of data from the seized computers (150 from each computer) and a few video recordings. One presumes, in the absence of any qualitative data demonstrating that the suspects were in fact preparing bombs in order to destroy nine US airliners, that Commissioner Clark is seeking public sympathy for his minions’ enormous capacity to lift and remove electronic equipment from one site to another in up to 69 buildings. This is a notable achievement if we are talking about a moving company and not a high-powered police investigation of an event of “catastrophic consequences.”

Some of the suspects were arrested because they have traveled to Pakistan at the beginning of the school year holidays. British and US authorities forget to mention that tens of thousands of Pakistani ex-pats return to visit family at precisely that time of year.

The wise guys on Wall Street and The City of London never took the liquid bomb plot seriously: At no point did the Market respond, nose-dive, crash or panic. The announced plot to bomb airlines was ignored by all Big Players on the US and London stock markets. In fact, petrol prices dropped slightly. In contrast to 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings (to which this plot is compared) the stock market ‘makers’ were not impressed by the governments’ claims of a ‘major catastrophe.’ George Bush or Tony Blair, who were informed and discussed the “liquid bomb plot” several days beforehand, didn’t even skip a day of their vacations, in response to the catastrophic threat.

And each and every claim and piece of ‘evidence’ put forth by the police and the Blair and Bush security authorities runs a cropper. Some of the alleged suspects are released, and new equally paltry ‘evidence’ is breathlessly presented: two tape recordings of “martyr messages” were found in the computer of one suspect, which, we are told, foretold a planned terrorist attack. The Clark team claimed with great aplomb that they found one or a few martyr videotapes, without clarifying the fact that the videos were not made by the suspects but viewed by them. Many people the world over pay homage to suicide martyrs to a great variety of political causes. Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan visits a shrine dedicated to World War II military dead -- including kamikaze suicide pilots, defying Chinese and Korean protests. Millions of US citizens and politicians pay homage to the war heroes in Arlington cemetery each year, some of whom deliberately sacrificed their lives in order to defend their comrades, their flag and the justice of their cause. It should be of no surprise that Asians, Muslims and others should collect videos of anti-Israeli or anti-occupation martyrs. In none of the above cases where people honor martyrs is there any police attempt to link the reverent observer with future suicide bomb plots -- except if they are Muslims. Hero worship of fallen fighters is a normal everyday phenomenon -- and is certainly no evidence that the idolaters are engaged in murderous activity.

A “martyr message” is neither a plot, conspiracy nor action, it is only an expression of free speech -- one might add, ‘internal speech’ (between the speaker and his computer) which might at some future time become public speech. Are we to make private dialogue a terrorist offense?

As the legal time limit expires on the holding of suspects without charges, the British authorities released two suspects, charged eleven, and eleven others continue to be held without charges, probably because there is no basis for proceeding further. As the number of accused plotters thin out in England, Clark and company have deflected attention to a world-wide plot with links to Spain, Italy, the Middle East and elsewhere. Apparently the logic here is that a wider net compensates for the large holes. In the case at hand, of the eleven who have been remanded to trial, only eight have been charged with conspiracy to prepare acts of terrorism; the other three are accused of “not disclosing information” (or being informers . . . of what?) and “possessing articles useful to a person preparing acts of terrorism.” (BBC News, 8/21/06) Since no bombs have been found and no plans of action have been revealed, we are left with the vague charge of ‘conspiracy’, which can mean a hostile private discussion directed against US and British subjects by several like-thinking individuals. The reason that it appears that ideas and not actions are in question is because the police have not turned up any weapons or specific measures to enter into the locus of attack (air tickets to board planes, passports and so on). How can suspects be charged with failing to disclose information, when the police lack any concrete information pertaining to the alleged bomb plot. The fact that the police are further diluting their charges against three more plotters is indicative of the flimsy basis of their original arrests and public claims. To charge a 17 year-old-boy with “possessing articles useful to a person preparing acts of terrorism” is so open-ended as to be laughable: Did the article have other uses for the boy or for his family (like a box cutter). Did he ‘possess’ written articles because they were informative or fascinating to a young person? Since he still possessed the article, he had not passed these articles to any person making bombs. Did he know of any specific plans to make bombs or any bomb-makers? The charges could implicate anyone possessing and reading a good spy novel or science fiction thriller in which bomb making is discussed. The eleven have already pleaded innocent; the trial will begin in due time. The government and mass media have already convicted the accused in the electronic and print media. Panic has been sown. Fear and hysterical anger is present in the long security lines at airports and train stations . . . Asian men quietly saying prayers are being pulled off of airplanes and planes diverted or airports evacuated.

The bomb plot hoax has caused enormous losses (in the hundreds of millions of dollars) to the airlines, business people, oil companies, duty free shops, tourist agencies, resorts and hotels, not to speak of the tremendous inconvenience and health related problems of millions of stranded and stressed travelers. The restrictions on laptop computers, travel bags, accessories, special foods and liquid medicines have added to the ‘costs’ of traveling.

Clearly the decision to cook up the phony bomb plot was not motivated by economic interests, but domestic political reasons. The Blair administration, already highly unpopular for supporting Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was under attack for his unconditional support for Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, his refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire and his unstinting support for Bush’s servility to US Zionist lobbies. Even within the Labor party over a hundred backbenchers were speaking out against his policies, while even junior cabinet ministers such as Prescott stated that Boss Bush’s foreign policy smelled of the barnyard. Bush was not yet cornered by his colleagues in the same way as Blair, but unpopularity was threatening to lead his Republican party to congressional defeat and possible loss of a majority of seats.

According to top security officials in England, Bush and Blair were “knowledgeable” about the investigation into a possible “liquid bomb” plot. We know that Blair gave the go-ahead for the arrests, even as the authorities must have told him they lacked the evidence and at best it was premature. Some reports from British police insiders claim that the Bush Administration pushed Blair for early arrests and the announcement of the ‘liquid bomb’ plot. Security officials then launched a massive, all-out ‘terror propaganda’ campaign designed to capture the attention and support of the public with the total support of the mass media. The security-mass media campaign served its objective -- Bush’s popularity increased, Blair avoided censure and both continued on their vacations.

The bomb plot political ploy fits the previous political pattern of sacrificing capitalist economic interests to serve domestic political and ideological positions. Foreign policy failures lead to domestic political crimes, just as domestic policy crises lead to aggressive military expansion.

The criminal frame-up of young Muslim-South Asian British citizens by the British security officials was specifically designed to cover up for the failed Anglo-American invasion of Iraq and the Anglo-American backing for Israel’s destructive but failed invasion of Lebanon. Blair’s “liquid bombers” plot sacrificed a multiplicity of British capitalist interests in order to retain political offices and stave off an unceremonious early exit from power. The costs of failed militarism are borne by citizens and businesses.

In an analogous fashion Bush and his Zioncon and other militarists exploited the events of 9/11 to pursue a militarist multi-war strategy in Southwest Asia and the Middle East. With time and scientific research, the official version of the events of 9/11 have come under serious questioning -- both regarding the collapse of one of the towers in New York, as well as the explosions in the Pentagon. The events of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq sacrificed major US economic interests: Losses in New York, tourism, airline industry and massive physical destruction; losses in terms of a major increase in oil prices and instability, increasing the costs to US, European and Asian consumers and industries.

Likewise the Israeli military invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, backed by the US and Great Britain, were economically costly destroying property, investments and markets, while raising the level of mass anti-imperial opposition.

In other words, the politics of US, British and Israeli (and by extension World Zionist) militarism has been at the expense of strategic sectors of the civilian economy. These losses to key economic sectors require the civilian-militarists to resort to domestic political crimes (phony bomb plots and frame-up trials) to distract the public from their costly and failed policies and to tighten political control. On both counts, the civilian militarists and the Zioncons are losing ground. The “liquid bomb” plot is unraveling, Israel is in turmoil, the Zioncons are preaching to the converted, and the US is, as always, the United States: The Democratic civilian militarists are capitalizing on the failures of their incumbent colleagues.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina, and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books). His latest book is, The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press, 2006). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu.

[Sid Walker]

Alleged Liquid Bomb Plot Credibility Crumbles

This is just a little housekeeping to clean the decks for the new year.

I think it's nice if we're all clear what bogus State-sponsored terror we're still supposed to believe was 'real' - and what's been quietly dropped from the official narrative of the WoT.

This is a useful role for the historically minded to perform, as the mass media these days are too busy concocting new phoney terror to tidy up loose ends.

[Len Colby]

Alleged Liquid Bomb Plot Credibility Crumbles

This is just a little housekeeping to clean the decks for the new year.

I think it's nice if we're all clear what bogus State-sponsored terror we're still supposed to believe was 'real' - and what's been quietly dropped from the official narrative of the WoT.

This is a useful role for the historically minded to perform, as the mass media these days are too busy concocting new phoney terror to tidy up loose ends.

Was the whole thing a hoax? Or was it an over reaction? Or was more or less as we were told?

To be honest I haven't looked into it enough to say, but I have yet to see any evidence it was the former. The PosionPlanet article Sid cited is no exception. All it establishes is that "A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges..." . The arrticle claims that he was "THE alleged ringleader " but he is only identified as having A key role in articles I've seen [CNN for example said he "...allegedly had a key operational role in the suspected plot." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12...plot/index.html ].

[Len Colby]

Alleged Liquid Bomb Plot Credibility Crumbles

This is just a little housekeeping to clean the decks for the new year.

I think it's nice if we're all clear what bogus State-sponsored terror we're still supposed to believe was 'real' - and what's been quietly dropped from the official narrative of the WoT.

This is a useful role for the historically minded to perform, as the mass media these days are too busy concocting new phoney terror to tidy up loose ends.

Was the whole thing a hoax? Or was it an over reaction? Or was more or less as we were told?

To be honest I haven't looked into it enough to say, but I have yet to see any evidence it was the former. The PosionPlanet article Sid cited is no exception. All it establishes is that "A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges..." . The arrticle claims that he was "THE alleged ringleader " but he is only identified as having A key role in articles I've seen [CNN for example said he "...allegedly had a key operational role in the suspected plot." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/12...plot/index.html ].