WE WARNED OF LONDON TERRORIST PLOT MONTHS BEFORE GOVERNMENT OR MEDIA BRIEFINGS.
WE WARNED THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PLANNED TERRORIST GAS ATTACK IN LONDON MANY WEEKS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT COULD. THE NEWS WAS NOT RELEASED TO THE MEDIA UNTIL BRITISH INTELLIGENCE HAD ALREADY PREVENTED THE ATTACK, AND THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO LATE, BUT WE WARNED YOU SEVERAL MONTHS EARLIER.
We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to expect a terrorist attack on the London underground. We mass posted warnings and survival guidelines on all major London newsgroups before the weekend. The news of a terrorist plot was not released to the public until two days later when MI5 and the metropolitan police took action to stop the terrorist plot.
*** EXAMPLES OF WARNINGS ISSUED BY AIG FRIDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2002 *** "WARNING: TERRORISM" "TERRORIST WARNING: LONDON GAS ATTACK" "TERRORIST WARNING: LONDON UNDERGROUND" "TERRORIST WARNING: INFORMATION & SURVIVAL" http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150307.57d73...@posting.google.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150307.2931f...@posting.google.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150354.344ef...@posting.google.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150243.1788a...@posting.google.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150850.5eae5...@posting.google.com http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150354.344ef...@posting.google.com
*** EXAMPLE OF WARNINGS ISSUED BY AIG 17 AUGUST 2002 *** "You need to be prepared now for the inevitable terrorist attack on London. The government knows there will be an attack." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8Rp79.2050$KQ6.77...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net
*** GOVERNMENT UNABLE TO WARN PUBLIC ON 7 NOVEMBER *** The British government released a non-specific terrorist warning on Thursday 7 November 2002 based on their intelligence, and a few minutes later this warning was withdrawn. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2419115.stm
*** NEWS RELEASED TO MEDIA & PUBLIC MONDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2002 *** News of the London underground terrorist gas attack plot was made public on Monday 18 November 2002 after MI5 arrested a number of individuals suspected as terrorists planning a poison gas attack using sarin or cyanide gas on the London underground tube network. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2088933 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2198228.stm
TERRORISTS MAY STRIKE AT ANY TIME. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN SURVIVAL.
In message <d3ab374.0211210137.4cf56...@posting.google.com>, Passwords <passwo...@postmaster.co.uk> writes
>WE WARNED OF LONDON TERRORIST PLOT MONTHS BEFORE GOVERNMENT OR MEDIA >BRIEFINGS.
>WE WARNED THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PLANNED TERRORIST GAS ATTACK IN LONDON >MANY WEEKS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT COULD. THE NEWS WAS NOT RELEASED TO >THE MEDIA UNTIL BRITISH INTELLIGENCE HAD ALREADY PREVENTED THE ATTACK, >AND THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO LATE, BUT WE WARNED YOU SEVERAL MONTHS >EARLIER.
Ah so your the ones who caused all the needless panic and hysteria about using the underground? -- CJ Graham
> We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about LU. How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about your own announcements? -- Richard J. (To e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
> > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about LU. > How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about your own > announcements?
Well technically, no it's not a lie.
Note the phrasing, his "official" warning was not issued on behalf of LU or any other body apart from his own. He can speak "officially" for himself and his organisation (if there is one) in the same way that you can issue "official" statements speaking for yourself, same goes for everyone else.
He was not empowered by LU to speak on their behalf but then he didn't claim to be doing so, he didn't lie.
> > > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 > > > to expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> > That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about > > LU. How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie > > about your own announcements? > Well technically, no it's not a lie.
> Note the phrasing, his "official" warning was not issued on behalf of > LU or any other body apart from his own. He can speak "officially" > for himself and his organisation (if there is one) in the same way > that you can issue "official" statements speaking for yourself, same > goes for everyone else.
That is nonsense. On that basis, "official" would be devoid of meaning.
"official" means (quote from dictionary) "sanctioned by, recognised by, or derived from authority". He has no authority in this area.
... unless of course he is speaking on behalf of the terrorists. -- Richard J. (To e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
> > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about LU. > How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about your own > announcements? > -- > Richard J. > (To e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
> > > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 > > > to expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> > That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about LU. > > How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about > > your own announcements? > Have you mentioned this to the powers that be?
No, 'cos I hear that the Beck line controller is on the case already. :-) -- Richard J. (To e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
> > > > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 > > > > to expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> > > That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about > LU. > > > How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about > > > your own announcements?
> > Have you mentioned this to the powers that be?
> No, 'cos I hear that the Beck line controller is on the case already. > :-)
Maybe not the Beck Line Controller ... but the Customer Communications rep.. at KTP is. ;-)
CJgraham <Newsgr...@nospam.com> wrote in message <news:4qJYOlA89L39Ewhh@cgraham.demon.co.uk>... > In message <d3ab374.0211210137.4cf56...@posting.google.com>, Passwords > <passwo...@postmaster.co.uk> writes > >WE WARNED OF LONDON TERRORIST PLOT MONTHS BEFORE GOVERNMENT OR MEDIA > >BRIEFINGS.
> >WE WARNED THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PLANNED TERRORIST GAS ATTACK IN LONDON > >MANY WEEKS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT COULD. THE NEWS WAS NOT RELEASED TO > >THE MEDIA UNTIL BRITISH INTELLIGENCE HAD ALREADY PREVENTED THE ATTACK, > >AND THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO LATE, BUT WE WARNED YOU SEVERAL MONTHS > >EARLIER.
> Ah so your the ones who caused all the needless panic and hysteria about > using the underground?
What panic and hysteria are you referring to? The public continued to use the underground train service as normal.
> > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about LU. > How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about your own > announcements?
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "official". It does not mean "government". It was an official announcement. Any action authorised by a person in a position of authority within an organisation is defined as official.
> > > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > > > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> > That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about LU. > > How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about > > your own announcements?
> You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "official". It does > not mean "government". It was an official announcement. Any action > authorised by a person in a position of authority within an > organisation is defined as official.
Presumably you are saying that it was authorised by a person in a position of authority within Acheson Intelligence Group. Who was that person, and what is his role within AIG?
But it wasn't an official alert because AIG have no more authority over the London Underground or matters of public safety than I have. It was in fact an unofficial alert. To confuse 'official' and 'unofficial' on a public safety issue is in my view irresponsible, as is issuing supposedly official alerts without identifying properly the issuing organisation. -- Richard J. (To e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
>> > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to >> > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
>> That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about LU. >> How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about your own >> announcements?
>You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "official". It does >not mean "government". It was an official announcement. Any action >authorised by a person in a position of authority within an >organisation is defined as official.
>Which part of the post was a lie?
Are your lot affiliated to the gang seen putting "Prepare to Die in a Poison Gas Attack" stickers on Jubilee Line trains today?
There are only two reasons to do that; one, to cause panic and alarm; and two, to increase racial hatred. Strange how that seems your purpose here too..... -- >Kat<
In message <d3ab374.0211210137.4cf56...@posting.google.com>, Passwords <passwo...@postmaster.co.uk> writes
>We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to >expect a terrorist attack on the London underground. We mass posted >warnings and survival guidelines on all major London newsgroups before >the weekend. The news of a terrorist plot was not released to the >public until two days later when MI5 and the metropolitan police took >action to stop the terrorist plot.
Actually news of the arrests of the gentlemen allegedly planning to attack an unspecified target (note that the references to gas attacks and London Underground are based on a few journalists jumping to the wrong conclusion from the original wire releases) was flashed at shortly after 8pm on Saturday 16th November. These arrests actually took place on Saturday 9th November but were not made public until the Sunday papers got hold of the story the following week.
"But police said no cyanide or noxious gas had been found on them when they were arrested on 9 November.".
Therefore your "official terrorist alert" of Friday 15th cannot in any way be connected to the arrests announced last weekend given that any danger that the three individuals are alleged to have presented to the public was negated a full seven days beforehand.
I put it to the assembled masses that the individual who posted the message above is full of shit. -- James Masterton - www.masterton.co.uk
James Masterton <use...@masterton.co.uk> wrote in message <news:59xxDbHgMo39Ewxj@local.masterton.co.uk>... > In message <d3ab374.0211210137.4cf56...@posting.google.com>, Passwords > <passwo...@postmaster.co.uk> writes > >We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > >expect a terrorist attack on the London underground. We mass posted > >warnings and survival guidelines on all major London newsgroups before > >the weekend. The news of a terrorist plot was not released to the > >public until two days later when MI5 and the metropolitan police took > >action to stop the terrorist plot.
> Actually news of the arrests of the gentlemen allegedly planning to > attack an unspecified target (note that the references to gas attacks > and London Underground are based on a few journalists jumping to the > wrong conclusion from the original wire releases) was flashed at shortly > after 8pm on Saturday 16th November. These arrests actually took place > on Saturday 9th November but were not made public until the Sunday > papers got hold of the story the following week.
> "But police said no cyanide or noxious gas had been found on them when > they were arrested on 9 November.".
> Therefore your "official terrorist alert" of Friday 15th cannot in any > way be connected to the arrests announced last weekend given that any > danger that the three individuals are alleged to have presented to the > public was negated a full seven days beforehand.
> I put it to the assembled masses that the individual who posted the > message above is full of shit.
> In message <d3ab374.0211210137.4cf56...@posting.google.com>, Passwords > <passwo...@postmaster.co.uk> writes > >We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > >expect a terrorist attack on the London underground. We mass posted > >warnings and survival guidelines on all major London newsgroups before > >the weekend. The news of a terrorist plot was not released to the > >public until two days later when MI5 and the metropolitan police took > >action to stop the terrorist plot.
> Actually news of the arrests of the gentlemen allegedly planning to > attack an unspecified target (note that the references to gas attacks > and London Underground are based on a few journalists jumping to the > wrong conclusion from the original wire releases) was flashed at shortly > after 8pm on Saturday 16th November. These arrests actually took place > on Saturday 9th November but were not made public until the Sunday > papers got hold of the story the following week.
> "But police said no cyanide or noxious gas had been found on them when > they were arrested on 9 November.".
> Therefore your "official terrorist alert" of Friday 15th cannot in any > way be connected to the arrests announced last weekend given that any > danger that the three individuals are alleged to have presented to the > public was negated a full seven days beforehand.
> I put it to the assembled masses that the individual who posted the > message above is full of shit. > -- > James Masterton - www.masterton.co.uk
Careful, a statment like that could be considered actionable, and given AIG's recent attitude I wouldn't put past those responsible.. In an earlier thread AIG claimed that someone objections to thier posts could become a 'national security' risk, unlikley though this may be, the remark indicates that the person responsible for AIG may have some 'problems', that type of indvidual is not known for acting in a calm and rational manner.
Hopefully the right authorities are becoming increasingly aware of AIG's activites....
> > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> And that constitutes "MONTHS BEFORE" how?!
If you check the original post you'll see that initial warnings were first posted on usenet in early August, in addition to the survival information provided on usenet groups on the Friday before the weekend MI5 counter-terrorist operation against the gas attack plot.
*** EXAMPLE OF WARNINGS ISSUED BY AIG 17 AUGUST 2002 *** "You need to be prepared now for the inevitable terrorist attack on London. The government knows there will be an attack." http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8Rp79.2050$KQ6.77...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net
*** GOVERNMENT UNABLE TO WARN PUBLIC ON 7 NOVEMBER *** The British government released a non-specific terrorist warning on Thursday 7 November 2002 based on their intelligence, and a few minutes later this warning was withdrawn. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2419115.stm
*** NEWS RELEASED TO MEDIA & PUBLIC MONDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2002 *** News of the London underground terrorist gas attack plot was made public on Monday 18 November 2002 after MI5 arrested a number of individuals suspected as terrorists planning a poison gas attack using sarin or cyanide gas on the London underground tube network. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2088933 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2198228.stm
> >> > We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > >> > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground.
> >> That's a lie. You have no authority to issue "official" alerts about LU. > >> How do you expect us to believe anything you post if you lie about your own > >> announcements?
> >You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word "official". It does > >not mean "government". It was an official announcement. Any action > >authorised by a person in a position of authority within an > >organisation is defined as official.
> >Which part of the post was a lie?
> Are your lot affiliated to the gang seen putting "Prepare to Die in a > Poison Gas Attack" stickers on Jubilee Line trains today?
> There are only two reasons to do that; one, to cause panic and alarm; > and two, to increase racial hatred. Strange how that seems your purpose > here too.....
How many people on your train were panicking? Are you panicking? What makes you think other members of the public are be less able than you are to cope with a warning about terrorism?
James Masterton <use...@masterton.co.uk> wrote in message <news:59xxDbHgMo39Ewxj@local.masterton.co.uk>... > In message <d3ab374.0211210137.4cf56...@posting.google.com>, Passwords > <passwo...@postmaster.co.uk> writes > >We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > >expect a terrorist attack on the London underground. We mass posted > >warnings and survival guidelines on all major London newsgroups before > >the weekend. The news of a terrorist plot was not released to the > >public until two days later when MI5 and the metropolitan police took > >action to stop the terrorist plot.
> Actually news of the arrests of the gentlemen allegedly planning to > attack an unspecified target (note that the references to gas attacks > and London Underground are based on a few journalists jumping to the > wrong conclusion from the original wire releases) was flashed at shortly > after 8pm on Saturday 16th November. These arrests actually took place > on Saturday 9th November but were not made public until the Sunday > papers got hold of the story the following week.
> "But police said no cyanide or noxious gas had been found on them when > they were arrested on 9 November.".
> Therefore your "official terrorist alert" of Friday 15th cannot in any > way be connected to the arrests announced last weekend given that any > danger that the three individuals are alleged to have presented to the > public was negated a full seven days beforehand.
> I put it to the assembled masses that the individual who posted the > message above is full of shit.
Are you suggesting that all of the terrorists were caught? Three members of a suspected terrorist gang were arrested.
" <null>" <farli...@nospam.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message <news:armodf$dg3$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>... > "James Masterton" <use...@masterton.co.uk> wrote in message > news:59xxDbHgMo39Ewxj@local.masterton.co.uk... > > In message <d3ab374.0211210137.4cf56...@posting.google.com>, Passwords > > <passwo...@postmaster.co.uk> writes > > >We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > > >expect a terrorist attack on the London underground. We mass posted > > >warnings and survival guidelines on all major London newsgroups before > > >the weekend. The news of a terrorist plot was not released to the > > >public until two days later when MI5 and the metropolitan police took > > >action to stop the terrorist plot.
> > Actually news of the arrests of the gentlemen allegedly planning to > > attack an unspecified target (note that the references to gas attacks > > and London Underground are based on a few journalists jumping to the > > wrong conclusion from the original wire releases) was flashed at shortly > > after 8pm on Saturday 16th November. These arrests actually took place > > on Saturday 9th November but were not made public until the Sunday > > papers got hold of the story the following week.
> > "But police said no cyanide or noxious gas had been found on them when > > they were arrested on 9 November.".
> > Therefore your "official terrorist alert" of Friday 15th cannot in any > > way be connected to the arrests announced last weekend given that any > > danger that the three individuals are alleged to have presented to the > > public was negated a full seven days beforehand.
> > I put it to the assembled masses that the individual who posted the > > message above is full of shit. > > -- > > James Masterton - www.masterton.co.uk
> Careful, a statment like that could be considered actionable, and given > AIG's recent attitude I wouldn't put past those responsible.. In an earlier > thread AIG claimed that someone objections to thier posts could become > a 'national security' risk, unlikley though this may be, the remark > indicates > that the person responsible for AIG may have some 'problems', that type > of indvidual is not known for acting in a calm and rational manner.
> Hopefully the right authorities are becoming increasingly aware of > AIG's activites....
> Alex
>gfarlie.demon.co.uk
Do you have an example of AIG activities which are either problematic or not rational, or are you making false accusations?
> Do you have an example of AIG activities which are either problematic > or not rational, or are you making false accusations?
How about refusing to identify the owners, aims, address etc of AIG despite several requests in this NG? I certainly find it problematic to receive "official alerts" from such a secretive organisation. -- Richard J. (To e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Alert <publicaler...@postmaster.co.uk> thoughtfully scribbled
>Kat <*ne...@kat22.clara.co.uk> wrote in message ><news:5zYWpkDXgl39Ewg1@purplehaze.freeserve.co.uk>... >> On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Alert <publicaler...@postmaster.co.uk> thoughtfully >> scribbled >> Are your lot affiliated to the gang seen putting "Prepare to Die in a >> Poison Gas Attack" stickers on Jubilee Line trains today?
>> There are only two reasons to do that; one, to cause panic and alarm; >> and two, to increase racial hatred. Strange how that seems your purpose >> here too.....
>How many people on your train were panicking? Are you panicking? What >makes you think other members of the public are be less able than you >are to cope with a warning about terrorism?
Why don't you answer the question *I* asked instead of posing your own? Too difficult maybe..... -- >Kat<
> How about refusing to identify the owners, aims, address etc of AIG despite > several requests in this NG? I certainly find it problematic to receive > "official alerts" from such a secretive organisation.
Please show some evidence of AIG's refusal to provide this information, and that AIG is 'a secretive organisation'.
> "Richard J." <rjn...@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message > <news:C4aF9.2030$LF2.20322502@news-text.cableinet.net>... > > "Alert" <publicaler...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:5d39212c.0211271042.58316b1e@posting.google.com... > > > Do you have an example of AIG activities which are either > > > problematic or not rational, or are you making false accusations? > > How about refusing to identify the owners, aims, address etc of AIG > > despite several requests in this NG? I certainly find it problematic > > to receive "official alerts" from such a secretive organisation. > Please show some evidence of AIG's refusal to provide this > information, and that AIG is 'a secretive organisation'.
The evidence is a series of questions in my posts that have not been answered despite other responses from you :
8 Nov 2002: [In response to your "We have been campaigning about the risks for over three years ..."] "Who exactly are "we"?"
19 Nov 2002: "Please explain who the Acheson Intelligence Group are, where they are based, what their objectives are."
20 Nov 2002: "For the third time, who are the Acheson Intelligence Group, where are they based, and what are their objectives?"
22 Nov 2002: "Presumably you are saying that it [the "official alert"] was authorised by a person in a position of authority within Acheson Intelligence Group. Who was that person, and what is his role within AIG?"
The lack of a response to these questions, which might enhance the credibility of AIG's announcements on important matters of public concern, certainly indicates a secretive organisation.
Now, instead of stalling for time, are you actually going to answer my questions? If not, why not? Straight answer, please. -- Richard J. (To e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)
Not very close were you. Either you knew nothing of the impending attack on Kenya/Israel, in which case the accuracy of your proclamations must be questioned, or you chose not to pass the warning on. Go cry "wolf" elsewhere.
Passwords wrote: > WE WARNED OF LONDON TERRORIST PLOT MONTHS BEFORE GOVERNMENT OR MEDIA > BRIEFINGS.
> WE WARNED THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE PLANNED TERRORIST GAS ATTACK IN LONDON > MANY WEEKS BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT COULD. THE NEWS WAS NOT RELEASED TO > THE MEDIA UNTIL BRITISH INTELLIGENCE HAD ALREADY PREVENTED THE ATTACK, > AND THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO LATE, BUT WE WARNED YOU SEVERAL MONTHS > EARLIER.
> We issued an official terrorist alert on Friday 15 November 2002 to > expect a terrorist attack on the London underground. We mass posted > warnings and survival guidelines on all major London newsgroups before > the weekend. The news of a terrorist plot was not released to the > public until two days later when MI5 and the metropolitan police took > action to stop the terrorist plot.
> *** EXAMPLES OF WARNINGS ISSUED BY AIG FRIDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2002 *** > "WARNING: TERRORISM" > "TERRORIST WARNING: LONDON GAS ATTACK" > "TERRORIST WARNING: LONDON UNDERGROUND" > "TERRORIST WARNING: INFORMATION & SURVIVAL" > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150307.57d73...@posting.google.com > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150307.2931f...@posting.google.com > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150354.344ef...@posting.google.com > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150243.1788a...@posting.google.com > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150850.5eae5...@posting.google.com > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=d3ab374.0211150354.344ef...@posting.google.com
> *** EXAMPLE OF WARNINGS ISSUED BY AIG 17 AUGUST 2002 *** > "You need to be prepared now for the inevitable terrorist attack > on London. The government knows there will be an attack." > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8Rp79.2050$KQ6.77...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net
> *** GOVERNMENT UNABLE TO WARN PUBLIC ON 7 NOVEMBER *** > The British government released a non-specific terrorist warning on > Thursday 7 November 2002 based on their intelligence, and a few > minutes later this warning was withdrawn. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2419115.stm
> *** NEWS RELEASED TO MEDIA & PUBLIC MONDAY 18 NOVEMBER 2002 *** > News of the London underground terrorist gas attack plot was made > public on Monday 18 November 2002 after MI5 arrested a number of > individuals suspected as terrorists planning a poison gas attack using > sarin or cyanide gas on the London underground tube network. > http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2088933 > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2198228.stm
> TERRORISTS MAY STRIKE AT ANY TIME. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN > SURVIVAL.
