Large Hadron Collider nuclear scientist charged with terror offences

[Bruno@MT]

It is also worth noting that contrary to general perception, 'scientists' can't do much damage. It's the engineers and technicians that can do real damage. As an engineer, I have done many interesting tech projects where a lot was at stake. There have been cases where someone who knew what they were doing could have caused tens of millions of dollars in damages with a single blow of a hammer. Scientists may know the principles, but engineers know the plumbing.

Other job types would be janitors (who usually have access to everything and the kitchen sink) and various administrators and logistics people who can move stuff and control access. Or HR workers who can get other people in.

Scientists are pretty low on the ladder when it comes to damage potential, unless they have a pyramid of very skilled people underneath them to turn their ideas from theory into reality.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Scientists are pretty low on the ladder when it comes to damage potential, unless they have a pyramid of very skilled people underneath them to turn their ideas from theory into reality.

Scientists, engineers, technicians, doctors, and janitors all share some similarities. One of them is access to facilities. One that they do not all share access to is access to data and information systems. And it would appear that just because a medical doctor and an engineer are involved in a terrorist attack, it may be no more technical in nature than driving a Jeep loaded with propane tanks into a garage and detonating it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafeel_Ahmed

He was an engineer who was studying for a PhD in computational fluid dynamics.

As an aeronautics engineer, Ahmed was able to secure employment, from December 2005, to August 2006, with Infotech, an Indian outsourcing company servicing clients such as Airbus and Boeing, before resigning abruptly.[12] It could be possible that he had access to sensitive design information about various aviation companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack

Police identified the two men as Bilal Abdullah, a British-born, Muslim doctor of Iraqi descent working at the Royal Alexandra Hospital,[11][12] and Kafeel Ahmed, also known as Khalid Ahmed, the driver, who was treated for severe burns at the same hospital.[13] The newspaper, The Australian, alleges that a suicide note indicated that the two had intended to die in the attack.[14] Ahmed did eventually die of his injuries, on 2 August.[15] Bilal Abdullah was later found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced to 32 years in prison.

Again, I do not think scientists who are terrorists should have access to the LHC. And whilst I agree that this current arrestee should be tried and found guilty before the cigarette and blindfold, if the accusations turn out to be true, then I'm all for it. I am surprised at how blase everyone seems to be about it, but OK, whatever.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Not blase. It's just that there is a large gap between being a sympathizer, and actively killing people in an act of terrorism.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not blase. It's just that there is a large gap between being a sympathizer, and actively killing people in an act of terrorism.

Before a terrorist kills people, they're a sympathizer at some point, yes? I'd be against either category of people having access to things like the LHC. I don't know how anyone can tell who is a future terrorist and who will simply send 'the cause' tea and sympathy.

 

[Tez3]

Before a terrorist kills people, they're a sympathizer at some point, yes? I'd be against either category of people having access to things like the LHC. I don't know how anyone can tell who is a future terrorist and who will simply send 'the cause' tea and sympathy.[/quote]

Guess thats where we have the advantage if that's the word, we've been dealing with terrorists for decades and how to tell who is what and who is a sympathiser. It's a science in it's self. there are lots of indicators and of course profiles for who will be and do what, that'll be how they caught this guy.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Before a terrorist kills people, they're a sympathizer at some point, yes? I'd be against either category of people having access to things like the LHC. I don't know how anyone can tell who is a future terrorist and who will simply send 'the cause' tea and sympathy.

Not necessarily, they can be a sympathizer and donating money to the cause, giving food and/or shelter, etc. As stated by Bruno@MT there is a large gap between the two.

 

[Tez3]

Not necessarily, they can be a sympathizer and donating money to the cause, giving food and/or shelter, etc. As stated by Bruno@MT there is a large gap between the two.

Absolutely, look at all the Americans that fund raised for the IRA, are they terrorists?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Absolutely, look at all the Americans that fund raised for the IRA, are they terrorists?

Same-same.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not necessarily, they can be a sympathizer and donating money to the cause, giving food and/or shelter, etc. As stated by Bruno@MT there is a large gap between the two.

If someone is giving money to terrorists, I'm all for lining them up against a wall and ventilating them.

 

[Bruno@MT]

If someone is giving money to terrorists, I'm all for lining them up against a wall and ventilating them.

Not going to work. I know this is a popular view in the US, but in reality, it won't do any good. It would make things worse. Hard line stances don't work.
By killing all sympathizers, you only create more of them.

If the Brits had shot everyone who sympathized with the IRA, the Northern Irelands population would have been halved. And as a result of those draconian actions, there would have been no peace yet, unless they managed to kill every catholic and relative of someone who'd been shot. Peace only came to Ireland when they started talking and compromising.

If he did something wrong, it should be proven and he should be sentenced to a reasonable punishment, in line with the crimes he committed. And just killing everyone who has ever been involved in any way with al qaeda will do more harm than good.

 

[David43515]

I’d be worried about some poor shmuck turning 40, having marital problems, having no friends, having his teenagers act like teenagers, deep in debt, going off his meds, losing his tin foil hat and thinking the government is watching him through his computer screen. This is the guy who will snap one day and decide to take some people with him. Homegrown terrorists are the ones we can’t see until its too late.

Hey, anyone see my tinfoil hat around….I put it down somewhere around here…

Dude, Has somebody been talkin` about me behind my back?
:boing2:

 

[Tez3]

Not going to work. I know this is a popular view in the US, but in reality, it won't do any good. It would make things worse. Hard line stances don't work.
By killing all sympathizers, you only create more of them.

If the Brits had shot everyone who sympathized with the IRA, the Northern Irelands population would have been halved. And as a result of those draconian actions, there would have been no peace yet, unless they managed to kill every catholic and relative of someone who'd been shot. Peace only came to Ireland when they started talking and compromising.

If he did something wrong, it should be proven and he should be sentenced to a reasonable punishment, in line with the crimes he committed. And just killing everyone who has ever been involved in any way with al qaeda will do more harm than good.

Exactly and the truth!
Though the population if Northern Ireland would have to have been wiped out completely as the sympathisers of the Protestant terrorists would also have had to been wiped out! Incidentally we still have bombs and terrorist activity there, it's just not 'news' anymore.

Remember the old saying...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. America has supported groups in several countries that are widely regarded as terrorists, the Taliban for one, so lynch mob talk is hardly appropriate now. Ask yourself how this situation all came about first.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Exactly and the truth!
Though the population if Northern Ireland would have to have been wiped out completely as the sympathisers of the Protestant terrorists would also have had to been wiped out! Incidentally we still have bombs and terrorist activity there, it's just not 'news' anymore.

Remember the old saying...one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. America has supported groups in several countries that are widely regarded as terrorists, the Taliban for one, so lynch mob talk is hardly appropriate now. Ask yourself how this situation all came about first.

Oh dear, tea and sympathy for people who want to kill me. Well, whether it will work or not, I'm still in favor of it. I am not interested in finding common ground with extremists who think I ought to be dead. I'm much happier if they're dead instead. Appropriate or not, that's my opinion, and I do not think it will change.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ever since you joined MT, you've always been fond of argument for arguments sake, Bill and, it is true that there's a certain pleasure that can be garnered from intelligent debate.

There seems to be an increasing combativeness to your tone over the past couple of weeks tho', accompanied by an appearance of less flexability. Is everything alright in the 'real world'?

Regardless, in addressing your last point, I am struck by the notion that simple solutions are attractive in the short term but tend to cause more problems down the line.

However, as I take what you say to mean you don't care about the ineffectiveness of draconian solutions as long as they are satisying emotionally and, thus by inference, dismiss any other approaches, it's rather pointless to debate it further.

So I wont.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I have no problem punishing someone who carries out a terrorist act. To punish someone who is just a supporter of a terrorist group, is punishing a thought crime. Most of them will not have done anything physical to support a terrorist organization expect to tell the pollsters they support the group.

Few conflicts are won by military means, most end up with both sides tired, and looking for a way to stop it all where both sides don’t lose face. Then they start talking and come to some agreement.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ever since you joined MT, you've always been fond of argument for arguments sake, Bill and, it is true that there's a certain pleasure that can be garnered from intelligent debate.

OK...

There seems to be an increasing combativeness to your tone over the past couple of weeks tho', accompanied by an appearance of less flexability. Is everything alright in the 'real world'?

I appreciate your concern, but as far as I know, everything is normal. Which is not to say optimal, but then what is these days?

Regardless, in addressing your last point, I am struck by the notion that simple solutions are attractive in the short term but tend to cause more problems down the line.

I don't know if it is a 'simple solution' as much as it is a basic lack of desire on my part to 'understand' a person who has stated that he wants to kill me and actively tries to do so. I tend to see that as a direct threat and react accordingly.

However, as I take what you say to mean you don't care about the ineffectiveness of draconian solutions as long as they are satisying emotionally and, thus by inference, dismiss any other approaches, it's rather pointless to debate it further.

I understand, of course, that there is always a bigger picture to be considered. The question 'why do they hate us' is important to be asked.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to consider a solution that involves either conversion to a radical brand of Islam or acceptance of dhimmi status, which the most dangerous of the current crop of Islamic terrorists currently claims as the only solution they would find acceptable. At a certain point, one has less interest in finding out why a person wants you dead and simply doing what is necessary to prevent them succeeding, which would presumably mean killing them first.

So I wont.

Your choice, of course. I'm sorry if you find my posts to be increasingly combative. I'll take a look at my behavior and see if I can find a reason you would feel that way.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have no problem punishing someone who carries out a terrorist act. To punish someone who is just a supporter of a terrorist group, is punishing a thought crime. Most of them will not have done anything physical to support a terrorist organization expect to tell the pollsters they support the group.

Few conflicts are won by military means, most end up with both sides tired, and looking for a way to stop it all where both sides don’t lose face. Then they start talking and come to some agreement.

By 'supporter', I am referring to people who send money or lend aid to terrorists intentionally. I fully understand that a person with no desire to hurt anyone can have sympathetic feelings towards terrorists without posing a risk themselves.

I would not, for example, want to kill people who donate money to what they think are Islamic charities, if the money is actually being funneled off to fund terrorist activities. I would have no hesitation to ask for a death sentence against a person who knew that they were giving money to terrorists who wanted to kill me. Why would I want such a person to have the opportunity to pay for the bullet or bomb or grenade used to kill me?

 

[Tez3]

Hardly tea and sympathy Bill, yo have misread my posts, I'm pointing out to you that America supported many groups who are considered terrorists and did in fact support the Taliban while they were against the Soviets, where do you think they got all their weaponry from? How you construe that into sympathy I don't know.You can't absolve your country from the part it played by being indignant now.
I have spent my entire working life fighting terrorists and you are less likely to find anyone with less sympathy than I.
Punishment should fit the crime if and when evidence has been produced that proves someone guilty, if we don't work like that we are no better than the terrorists themselves.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Few conflicts are won by military means, most end up with both sides tired, and looking for a way to stop it all where both sides don’t lose face. Then they start talking and come to some agreement.

Like WWII? You have a point about some of our more modern conflicts, but I'd hesitate to say 'most conflicts' end in stalemate and negotiation for face-saving terms to end the conflict. I'd actually say few of them end that way.

 

[Bruno@MT]

The fact that most of Americas foreign long term problems are caused by their own own short term solutions should be clue that continuing along the same line of short term black and white policy is not going to solve the problems.

It may be emotionally gratifying to you to just shoot everyone who doesn't do right in your eyes, but it is not going to solve anything. It'll only makes things even worse in the long term.

Personally, I prefer long term solutions.