Man Tries To Use Explosive Device On US Flight 809
reporter writes with news that a Nigerian man allegedly attempted to set off a small explosive device — possibly a firecracker — on a Delta Airbus 330 airliner bound for Detroit yesterday. "There was a pop and then smoke wafted through the cabin. A passenger then climbed over several seats, lunged across the aisle and managed to subdue the suspect, the eyewitnesses said. The Nigerian man was placed in a headlock before being dragged up to the first class cabin. Passenger Zeina Seagal told CNN that after the suspect was collared and parts of his burning pants were removed, flight attendants quickly grabbed fire extinguishers and doused the fire at his seat." The man has claimed links to al-Qaeda, though the investigation hasn't confirmed that yet. (They're not taking anything for granted given that his pants were literally on fire.)
Result (Score:5, Informative)
The new rules are hilarious however:
- Not allowed to have any items or anything on your lap for the last 1 hour of flight
- Not allowed to go to toilet during that time either
- Crew doesn't tell about cities or landmarks so passengers don't know where they are flying (it's so hard to time that on clock)
What is that going to improve?
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Result (Score:5, Interesting)
But you mention a good point: the suspect was apprehended with the help of a passenger. How about instead of wasting billions of dollars on ridiculous security measures, we pay passengers to take martial arts lessons?
Or, instead of banning weapons, what about mandating that everyone flying MUST carry a knife with them?
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets go Swiss. Everyone is required to complete military service (4 to 6 years). In which, they get trained on weapons usage, self defense, martial arts, etc. Now, you have a whole plane load of security experts.
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
They could be doing something else, being productive members of society, living their lives (some of the best years of their life, too).
So you're saying members of the military aren't productive members of society and that they gain no life experience from service. Speaking as someone who served in the U.S. Navy as a submariner, I find that position laughable. The value of the life you live shouldn't be based on a few years worth of a salary that you're so certain could have been higher.
to say nothing of the price of my liberty
You have your liberty because others are willing to serve. How about getting your head out of your ass?
Re:Result (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry. I should be more clear here. I'm not trying to be anti-military, but at the same tome: no, the military is not a productive part of society. They produce nothing of everyday value, or pretty close to it. Rather, it's a protective part of society. This is important too, but at the end of the day the whole reason for the Army/Navy/whatever is to keep whatever I'm doing (and my neighbors and their neighbors) intact. If all the "bad guys" in the world turned good in a torrent of peace and flowers and sunshine and unicorns heralding the dawn of a new era free from conflict forever, we'd be better off without any troops whatsoever. In the interim, it's good to have them around, but every resource that we devote to the military is diverted from productive activity, and the things people really value in their everyday lives: manufacturing, programming, literature, textiles, art, car-washing, gardening, home improvement, gym memberships, football, education, books on tape, whatever.
Moreover, I'm much better at programming than soldiering. My time really is better spent outside the army. It's the basic principle of "specialization" which Adam Smith expounded upon in Wealth of Nations tens of decades ago. Sure, some people can benefit from their career in the military life, plenty. Some people can appreciate the military culture. I'm not among them. I would find it oppressive, grating, and obnoxious, and probably feel trapped. I've got an ingrained anti-authoritarian streak a mile wide, which I prefer to avoid activating.
Finally, if everyone spends some of the formative years of their lives in a very rigid, structured organization like the military, we as a society would trend towards an organizational monoculture in the rest of our business world which would hamper our ability to innovate and create more-efficient business processes, just because everyone has been inculcated the same way.
Now, my family has plenty of military tradition. I can appreciate the military. My great-grandfather was a hero in the Polish-Bolshevik war. (He got a snazzy estate on the border, and he and his family were set for life, until the Soviets rolled in and shipped everyone off to Siberia). My grandfather on the other side of the family trained to operate a Davy Crockett missile (you know, the "atomic hand grenade"). And now my little brother is thinking of going into the Army. Voluntarily. He'd have a blast, I'm sure. He'd like it. He's a lot better suited for it than I am. The nation will be adequately protected without the government telling me exactly what I'm going to do with 4-6 years of my life.
And you know, in times of great need, like the big world wars, when we have a draft, sometimes that little infringement is a price that people have to pay, and it's worth it. But now? For the sake of airline security to possibly theoretically maybe help thwart a terrorist attack like the one that was just the other day thwarted without that sort of help? Not worth it. Call me again when there's a real threat to America. Thanks.
Re:Result (Score:5, Informative)
Except females.
Except those deemed unfit and those who request to perform civilian service. (Starting this year, this way is open to all at 1.5x the duration of uniformed service.)
Lying down and shooting at targets 300 metres away with an assault rifle. Excluding those who perform their uniformed service sans weapons.
The only defense I picked up was how to defend myself against the incompetence of superiors (i.e. selective hearing).
Bwahahaha.
You may have been looking for Israel or something, but the only thing this hunk of junk produces is a thriving mass of overweight, corrupt and slimy staff officers with no base in reality whatsoever. The training you get is of approximately the same value as watching four Steven Seagal movies end-to-end.
Full disclosure: Sgt in the Swiss Army, retired in Q3/2009. Tell me about your sources. :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Result (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. You ban bottled water, and only outlaws will have bottled water. :P
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
History disagrees. The Troubles mostly stopped when the British government started seriously negotiating with Northern Irish Republicans. The PLO stopped using terrorism when Israel sat down to negotiate.
Terrorists do what they do for a reason. That reason can usually be addressed by politics. There will always be a hardcore that doesn't think the political solution proposed is sufficient (witness IRA splinter groups and Hamas in Israel), but political action can kill most of the support for them. One thing that history did teach us, is that repression is definitely not the political action that works, unless you're prepared for some unacceptable politics (aka, genocide) on the non-terrorist side.
Mart
Re:Result (Score:5, Funny)
The easy solution is g-strings, flip-flops, pasties, bath towels for every seat and lots and lots of deodorant spray.
You show me a naked terrorist on an airliner and I'll show you an unarmed terrorist on an airliner.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I thought that was the standard /. uniform...
You can't depend on the home-town hero. (Score:4, Insightful)
The passengers will fight the fool to his death.
People do strange things under stress. They do not always do the right things.
The aircraft is most vulnerable to the suicide bomber in take-off and landing. Passengers and crew are belted in.
The plane can be pitched steeply up. The acceleration is significant.
The bomber may take the window seat.
The party of four from the Sun and Shadows Retirement Home may be seated next. Not Bronco Billy Anderson and The Ranger From San Antonio.
None of this will matter, of course, if the primary explosive device ignites within a heart beat or so.
I have wondered idly if it would be worth trying to ignite a magnesium laptop case - or whether a potent explosive or incendiary could be impregnated into ordinary clothing.
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
The passengers will fight the fool to his death.
Exactly! 9/11 will never happen again. Not because of the ridiculous tactics of the TSA, but because the rules changed on that day.
Used to be that your plane was hijacked, you flew somewhere obscure and waited on the tarmac while a deal was worked out, and then you were free. That's how box cutters were enough of a weapon to take over the flights.
Now we all know that someone doing trying something like that could very likely end in disaster, so when we passengers see something going down, we put an immediate stop to it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If 9/11 changed the rules as you say, then why have there been several successful (read: control of the plane was taken) hijackings since then?
People like to say the rules have changed, but the fact that successful hijackings have occurred since then demonstrates that is just plain wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
XKCD seems to think you can. [xkcd.com]
Re:Result (Score:4, Funny)
In the USA airplanes flights are almost waterproof
Huh?
Aquaman would have been no help.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that he should have been spotted as a potential threat. The one way ticket itself is supposed to be a red flag.
But as for the eventually they will get it right part of your argument...
So, we all know there's no negative consequences to them to keep practiceing till they get it right? So, having their agent set his lap on fire and having to have it stomped out isn't a publicity loss for them? There's nobody over there now thinking "Why should I give my h
Re:Result (Score:4, Funny)
You missed the most likely new rule:
- Not allowed to wear pants.
Re:Result (Score:4, Interesting)
It most likely gets to that point too - everyone will just sit naked and doing nothing for the whole flight. If your eyes move, you will be shot.
However, those rules actually are real, they were sent to airlines this morning. They are also requiring double security checks at airports - one when you go to terminal area, and one at the port. Again, shouldn't you get caught in the first check?
Re:Result (Score:5, Funny)
That will last exactly as long as it takes for me to take a flight.
"You want me to sit naked? OK." *strips*
TSA guy: "NO! PLEASE NO! PLEASE PUT YOUR CLOTHES BACK ON! *OH GOD MY EYES* "
--
BMO
Re:Result (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you so much for this vivid imagery.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not only on your lap, but on your bare skin. Creeping closer to your own naughty bits.
Re:Result (Score:4, Informative)
Here [montrealgazette.com] is canadian newspaper stating them at least (I read earlier from local newspaper in my language)
Re:Result (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have a source for that?
Security is getting so ridiculous that I'm forced to wonder how long it will be until these people decide to ban passengers. No passengers -> no terrorists -> no victims.
Re:Result (Score:4, Interesting)
I found this [montrealgazette.com] for Canada, it seems to have the same rules stated too.
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing. Given US's kneejerk reactions to these kinds of events, is it at all surprising that more and more people are refusing to visit the United States for anything other than business purposes? These idiots either don't realize or don't care that overreaction does have its price.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Get a book called "Family Of Secrets". I have not read it ywt, but I have heard that is helps explain much of the very problem you are talking about over the past 50 years.
Re:Result (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Searching for bombs, detaining luggage, banning liquids etc... helps nobody. Hijack and bombing attempts fail when another passenger beets the crap out of you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
People don't like to blow up so they will beet the crap out of anyone who tries
Come on, even terrorists don't deserve that kind of treatment [wikipedia.org]
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be a looping problem. All the government can think about is the last attempt, only backwards. There has been lots of dedication into flights after 9/11, while leaving all the other security problems open. Now its the same thing. This single thing happened on the last hour of flight, so they're thinking it's always going to happen on last hour of flight now.
And you are perfectly correct, even 9/11 happened in first minutes of flights, since they were flights leaving from US.
Don't solve the problem by looking backwards and making stupid rules to counter those; solve the whole problem and look why it is happening.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And 9/11 won't happen again because this time the passengers won't let it. As soon as people learned the rules had changed, that the hijackers were going to kill them and not just hold them hostage till they reach their destination, their tactics became ineffective. People know that do nothing means death, but doing something may have give them a chance at life.
Re:Result (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. We don't need ANY airport security anymore. Just laws granting civil and criminal immunity to passengers and crew defending themselves on flights. The people onboard can and will protect themselves.
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. We don't need ANY airport security anymore. Just laws granting civil and criminal immunity to passengers and crew defending themselves on flights. The people onboard can and will protect themselves.
What's that you say? He was only scratching an itch? Not activating a bomb? Oh... wow, good thing I've got immunity for what I did... here then, his family can have his scalp back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just laws granting civil and criminal immunity to passengers and crew defending themselves on flights.
Breaking news: Self-Defense or defense of the life of another is a legally sufficient defense against murder/manslaughter charges.
Re:Result (Score:4, Insightful)
Take this argument out of the airplane context, and think about it.
At the Fort Hood shooting, who took out the shooter? He started the shooting in the middle of a group of well trained, but unarmed individuals. Who took him out? An armed civilian. When you take away the ability of people to defend themselves, they are left defenseless.
Not to say a shootout on an aircraft would be a good thing. That's the last thing anyone would want to be involved in. A very dense population, with no place to run to, in an environment that is more dangerous to shoot in. Anyone who would consider such a thing would already consider, their odds of success are much smaller in any group of people who can defend themselves.
Before 9/11, I knew a guy who worked personal security. He brought his sidearm on board a couple times. Once was accidentally, where he forgot it was in his bag (he thought he moved it to checked luggage) and discovered it in his carry-on mid-flight. The other, he discovered he carried it to the checkpoint, but with his credentals, he was told to bring it on with him. He was asking to be allowed to check the bag, and was told "oh, you're clear, go."
Neither time did he create an incident, but if an incident did happen, he would have been the armed civilian who could have ended the situation.
It isn't just on the aircraft where the situation is amazingly dangerous. Consider the 2002 LAX shooting at the El Al terminal. He was shot by an airline security guard, who was one of the few armed people in the area.
Re:Result (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't talk about 9/11 like its an annual holiday. It was 9/11/2001. Almost 10 years ago. Flying is safe. Safer than taking a shower.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But showers involve liquids. Lots of liquids. WAY more than 3 ounces. What if Al Qaeda piped liquid explosives into your shower?
Re:Result (Score:4, Informative)
You're obviously not paying attention.
Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical Muslim cleric and member of Al Qaeda in Yemen, encouraged Hasan to do it. Both acted for ideological reasons, same as any terrorists.
From: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/major-hasans-mail-wait-join-afterlife/story?id=9130339&page=1 [go.com]
There's lots more there, but that's pretty indicative. Feel free to RTFA.
If you're still waiting for demonstration, you're being lazy or blind. This guy was a radical Muslim and a terrorist by any definition.
Re:Result (Score:5, Insightful)
"(1) the aircraft had not landed so this was not an attack "on American soil;""
Under US law, it was similar, though. Much like attacking a US flagged ship at sea.
"(2) the nutjob at Ft. Hood had been open and clear that he did not want to be deployed - to the extent of trying to buy his way out of the service. This is not terrorism - it is a mass murder by a man who should have been identified and stopped well before the Ft.Hood shooting."
The nutjob at Ft. Hood didn't want to be deployed because he became sympathetic to the enemies US troops are fighting. He was in regular contact with jihadist groups in the months leading up to the attack, and even wanted to have some of his own patients tried for war crimes. The man cried out "Allahu Akbhar" before he mowed down his fellow soldiers. Admit it or not, this was terrorism. He certainly thought it was.
(3) Your thinly veiled indictment of the changed political culture of the USA now requires that you be outed as the Glen Beck puppet that you are."
And does your silly screed make you a puppet of Micheal Moore and the like?
Re:Long Distance Rail (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, on what planet does that exist? Right now I'm booked for a flight from Pennsylvania to Colorado. Both involve a layover in Chicago.
My round trip cost for the flight was about $200. The first half is actually direct, and will only take me about 4-5 hours. The return trip has a 2 hour delay due to the layover.
Now lets compare that to what Amtrak offered me.
Same departure time/date. I would leave PA on Sunday and arrive in Denver on.... Tuesday. So that means I'll HAVE to purchase the rooms. (27 hours of travel time if you ignore the transfer delays)
Round trip cost for Amtrak with the necessary rooms? $800+ Not to ignore the fact that I'd spend nearly 2.25 days travelling alone. If I were to drive, GoogleMaps puts the travel time at 22 hours. So I could rent a car for a week, drive there in less time, and actually have three other people travel with me for no additional cost. The cost on Amtrak would be $2400 before tax to take 3 people from PA to CO.
Trains are good for sightseeing tours for a couple at most. A family would be expensive beyond belief. Better to fly and then rent a vehicle (since you have to rent a vehicle on the other end for the train anyway.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the line of trains: China just opened a line from Guangzhou to Wuhan, almost 1100 km, travel time is now under 3 hours, similar to flying. There are nine stops on the route, trains run at 350 km/h with top speed of almost 400 km/h. It's the fastest high-speed link in the world now. And a ticket costs something like RMB500 (USD 73), eight times the cost of a normal train ticket (10-11 hour trip) and a little less than a plane ticket.
With such a system you could do your route in like yours in about 6 hour
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Long Distance Rail (Score:5, Informative)
Rail travel could be cheaper and could actually compete with the airlines. If Amtrak and CSX et al improved the track, including engaging in a program of electrification (which they should do anyway), and started using lighter, lower cost, rolling stock,
I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but I have to comment on this segment. First, regarding "lighter, lower cost rolling stock" there's a huge perception that the Acela service on the NEC corridor sucks because they train is too heavy, and in turn the train is too heavy because of FRA safety regs. Yes, the Acela is heavy, and yes the Acela is heavy because of safety regs (although the FRA regs were revised in the late 1990's to make accommodations for the Acela) but that's not the cause of any performance problems. I worked on the testing of the Acela trainsets in Pueblo and in NJ in 2000 and the trainset can sustain speeds of well over 150 mph for hours at a time. The power cars are plenty powerful - one of the Amtrak engineers on the project told me that if a trainset was powered by one PC instead of the normal two, the end-to-end (Bos-DC) run time would only be increased by 5 minutes). If you look at the cost of an Acela trainset, it falls within the range of other HSR trainsets like the ICE, TGV and Eurostar (albiet at the higher end). The Acela service sucks because it shares tracks with freight trains (in fact most of the NEC is dispatched by CSX and Norfolk Southern who tend to prioritize their trains over Amtrak trains), because the catenary south of NYC dates from the 10th century and can't handle high speeds, because there are a number of grade-crossings along the line north of NYC that the trains have to slow down for, and because the track has a lot of curves that the train has to slow down for.
In any event, the rolling stock is by far a minor cost compared with the total capital cost of an HSR system. Train track costs on the order of $1 million/mile for a single track. That costs does not include land acquisition, electrification, environmental review, the inevitable NIMBY litigation, mitigation costs, etc. And I agree that more electrification is something we need, but it's not just a matter of stringing wire. Bridges have to be raised to allow for the additional clearance for the catenary, if you're electrifying an existing line you have to do the work at night to minimize traffic disruption which means nighttime nose & lighting concerns, you have safety concerns (especially at crossings), you have to acquire more ROW for electrical substations, and so one. Combine all these costs with the perception that "transit needs to pay for itself" and you have a country unwilling to invest the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary for a world class rail system.
Probable Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Crazy loner sets off home made firecracker on plane and lights pants on fire.
Oh great!!! (Score:5, Funny)
He was coming to the States to deliver my $40,000,000US.
Wonderful (Score:4, Insightful)
Our service today... (Score:5, Funny)
"possibly a firecracker" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It used to be... (Score:5, Insightful)
... that the plane landed in Havana, the hijacker got off the plane, and everyone went around their business or it landed in Tel-Aviv, the plane on the ground, and the hijackers shot/arrested with one or two dead passengers that the hijackers had killed to show they were "serious". The passengers sat in their seats and waited it out.
Those were the days when hijackers could depend on the passivity of passengers.
With planes being flown into buildings, passengers are no longer passive. It's not the TSA that keeps planes safe, it's the passengers and crew that will beat the snot out of the latest Al-Q "martyr."
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is still a valid purpose in watching for bombs, and has been for decades. The most courageous passengers will do no good if someone manages to set off a usable explosive and blow a hole in the side of the plane.
Re:It used to be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those were the days when passengers could depend on their captors not being suicidal.
Precisely. When the hijackers aren't suicidal, you know they want to land the plane safely, and your best chance of survival is to not do anything crazy to attract unnecessary attention to yourself before the plane is on the ground. After 9/11 we know that this is no longer the case; there are suicidal hijackers out there who have no intention of landing the plane safely. In that case, your best chance of survival is to stop the hijackers at all costs. This is why there cannot be another 9/11, and whatever TSA does on the ground is irrelevant.
The message is clear (Score:5, Funny)
The message is clear: Don't fuck with people flying in to Detroit. We have very little to lose. I can see that scenario playing out now:
"I will blow up the plane!"
"Jackass, I'm *willingly* leaving a place with universal health care, low crime, and pot on every street corner to go *home* to a city with crushing illiteracy, high crime, and an epic unemployment level. Do you think I really give a flying fuck about dying?"
I just wonder how many people were uncomfortable with the extra federal attention the flight got when it landed =)
Re: (Score:3)
So...how come it was, apparently, a Dutchman who subdued him? (after jumping over few rows of seats)
Re:The message is clear (Score:5, Funny)
A Dutchman visiting Detroit on vacation is even more hardcore than an American living there.
URGNET HELP NEEDED PLS (Score:4, Funny)
From the desk of Barrister Kofi Kukukuku,
Ministry of Finance,
Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Dear ,
I hope this message finds you well. I am in urgent need of a representative in you country
to assist with the transfer of $10 USD Million for legal assistance. The son of the deposed
dictator Silas Kofi Abdulmutallab who was assassinated in a violent coup in 2007. Is accused
of attempted bombing of a commercial flight from Amsterdam and is being held Ilegally by the
United States., who is demanding immediate bribe of $4 USD million for his release.. For your kind
assistance in this matter we are prepared to pay $5 USD million for simple transfer to an account
in your country, to prevent further taxation by corrupt officials. To assent, simply reply soonest
with the following information:
Your bank account number;
your address and phone numer;
your national idenification number for security pruposes.
I look forward to your kind assistance.
Sincerely,
Barrister Kofi Kukukuku
That's actually almost true (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it turns out he really is a son of a prominent nigerian banker [yahoo.com]. I'm not making this up :)
And there was a great big fizzling sound (Score:3, Informative)
And there was a great big fizzing sound as his device failed to accomplish it's task with was either a detonation or an incendiary intended to burn the plane out of the sky.
Since it was in his, ahem, pants or pocket he burned himself where it hurts effectively removing himself from the gene pool either by a lifetime of incarceration or more directly by incineration.
You'd like to think, ouch that's gotta hurt but then who has sympathy for someone attempting to kill other people with explosives or flames?
In a way you want the lone wolf jihadies to come out of the woodwork and fail since they illuminate their otherwise low key network connections. It's sorta like a flash light in the darkness of terror plots by individuals or states.
Fucking douchebag (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fucking douchebag (Score:5, Interesting)
It'll be interesting to compare Obama's response to the fear-fear-fear responses from the Bush Administration.
Yet Another Exploding iPhone. (Score:3, Funny)
I thought Apple had fixed this problem?
Bet this guy wishes he'd bought an Android.
This attack was perfectly succesful (Score:5, Insightful)
Security Theater (Score:5, Insightful)
The response? Add more of the same ineffective measures.
Thank goodness for the incompetence of the terrorist.
Re:Security Theater (Score:5, Insightful)
"Best" of all, security theatre related: tonight on the TV news it was mentioned that this individual's name was on a list of high-risk terror suspects, some kind of watch list I guess, but not on the no-fly list. So this guy was even on the radar of US security services, and he still managed to pull a stunt like this!
Sounds like Kinepak (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is, these pathetic incompetent terrorists are going to be responsible for causing billions of dollars to spent on extra airport security and many, many lifetimes of time will be wasted in stupid delays.
Some incompetent terrorists tries to blow up the plane, but can't build a proper electronic detonator that a 10th grader could solder together? Now we all have to be humiliated by taking our shoes off.
Some incompetent wanna-be terrorists think about a liquid bomb because they saw it in the movie Die Hard 3? Now millions of Americans have to buy overpriced beverages and/or die of thirst. Not to mention that the world's best chemists don't know a reasonable way to make a liquid bomb actually freakin work.
And now, some useless waste of space terrorist doesn't build a proper bomb using over the counter ingredients like fertilizer/diesel fuel or tannerite. (both are so easy to get that a 10th grader could order either of those explosives). No, the idiot tries to blow up an airliner with what sounds like a gunpowder bomb. And despite only managing to burn his own pants off, undoubtedly some new round of draconian security measures will kill many lifetimes of wasted time at security checkpoints.
Fact is, the United States has killed far more of it's citizens through reacting to the actions of terrorists than terrorists have ever harmed.
Next TSA move ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you noticed a pattern to most Terrorism attempts? They tend to fail.
The plot that hit the USS Cole started with a boat so loaded with explosives that it sank before it reached an American warship.
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you noticed a pattern to most Terrorism attempts? They tend to fail.
bin Laden's mates bought some loser a plane ticket for a few thousand dollars and we then impose restrictions that will cost billions of dollars over the next years and assist with driving more airlines into bankruptcy.
And you call that a failure?
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:5, Interesting)
seriously? just because it wasn't successful by your standards you are ruling out Al-Qaeda? they are not perfect. they fail just like everyone else. they do however learn very fast from their mistakes and try again. there is no reason to believe this wasn't them just because it wasn't successful in bringing down the plane. it was successful in showing them how to get certain components onboard. it was successful in showing how to assemble them onboard. it was successful in showing how we react to their new plan. i'm sure it was successful in accomplishing any number of their objectives. sometimes they just send people out to test reactions and responses to attempted attacks. not all actions are full on real attacks, sometimes they are just testing our lines.
i'm not saying that is was for sure Al-Qaeda, but i'm not stupid enough to rule them out just because it didn't fit my idea of what a successful Al-Qaeda attack should be. they only have to be successful in bringing down the plane once, we have to be successful in stopping them every time.
what has me is how this guy was allowed to land ALIVE. i for one will not take prisoners when somebody trys to blow me up in the sky.
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:5, Informative)
The perpetrator is claiming he received the explosives from Al-Qaeda in Jemen. He did visit Jemen before boarding this flight, so that is quite likely the source.
Also, it was a binary explosive: he was trying to inject liquid chemicals into solid chemicals strapped to his legs. They exploded mildly, but mostly set him on fire - that was were the bang and fire came from. Right then a Dutch passenger jumped over a few chairs and subdued him. Although I've read reports that the terrorist was "sitting dazed in his chair" - he'd probably expected to die right there, and when he didn't he was in shock.
Binary explosives are a bit hard to mix and if you don't get it right, you don't get a big bang. Also, it looks like there was no containing vessel so the bang could have been like gunpowder in the open: a big flash but apart from that, nothing much.
I'm wondering that kind of chemicals they were using though, because he was checked by security and nothing showed up on the scanners. He probably had the nitrogen-rich stuff strapped to his legs and harmless-looking stuff in his handluggage.
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:5, Informative)
Binary explosives are a bit hard to mix
That's an understatement.
The TSA itself has admitted that it is nearly impossible to pull off:
The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet. You have to have significant uninterrupted time with space and other requirements that are not easily available in a secured area of an airport.
2.04.2008 More on the Liquid Rules: Why We Do the Things We Do [tsa.gov]
That's right -the TSA has admitted that binary explosives are essentially impossible to pull off, and yet they still insist on on the totally pointless liquid restrictions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right -the TSA has admitted that binary explosives are essentially impossible to pull off, and yet they still insist on on the totally pointless liquid restrictions.
That's likely because, as was demonstrated by this incompetent in miniature, even an improperly-mixed binary explosive, if in sufficient quantity, can cause a fire in the cabin that will compromise the safety of the passengers -- depressurization, fumes from the fire, fumes from upholstery, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
The bomb described in the Wikipedia article used nitroglycerine, NOT a binary liquid explosive mixed together onboard.
The alleged threat of a terrorist mixing up a bomb from 2 or more inert ingredients smuggled aboard was the story used to justify the TSA liquid restrictions we now fly under. THAT is the threat that even the TSA now admits is farfetched.
Obviously, making a bomb from hitroglycerine is fairly easy (assuming that you don't blow yourself up in the process). But nitroglycerine should also have t
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Philippine Airlines Flight 434 - one passenger killed and hole in the aircraft fuselage by just such a bomb.
Not a binary explosive mixed in flight.
It was a bunch of cotton balls soaked with nitroglycerin - you know that explosive that you just look at it funny and it blows up.
In fact, it is so delicate that the apartment they were using to build the bombs in DID blow up, whcih is how they caught the guys.
So, if the TSA wants to ban all damp cotton balls they might have some justification. But, if they treated them the same way they do liquids today, they'd make you throw them into that huge trash can at the head of the line and there would be a good chance that the nitroglycerin would go BOOOOM when the bad guy did so, killing or maiming most people in the near vicinity.
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this was really an al-Qaeda plot - then why did he not succeed in crashing the airplane ?
Because they had to depend on a suicidal human for the final part. And not all parts of Al Qaida (which is in practice a funding network for otherwise disparate Islamic themed terrorist groups) are uniformly competent. Having said that, this guy might well be someone who got scammed ("You want to strike a blow against the Great Satan? And you got real American dollars? We'll be whatever terrorist network you want us to be, buddy! Here's your top quality suicide pants! I use them myself!"). The so-called "lone wolf" who isn't connected to obvious terrorist groups.
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you really trying to convince me that they are a bunch of incompetents who just manage to cause a little damage but that is all ?
Most terrorists, like most other criminals, are not smart people. Smart people don't tend to try and blow themselves up.
Re:Why did he not succeed ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who needs success? Plans are enough! Just plans is how we got those silly no-liquids rules. And on top of that a week of highly disrupted air traffic. Terrorism is that easy. I'd almost call it dead easy but in that case no death involved.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys are not stupid, if they wanted to do it they would succeed.
Huh? If these guys were smart they wouldn't be using violence as a purported means to achieve their ends.
Only the brain-dead use political violence, or they do so not to achieve what they claim to want, but rather because they like killing people.
Just ask the Basque, recently celebrating a half century of killing people in the name of an independent homeland they are no closer to now than they were decades ago. Just ask the Tamils. Ju
BRILLIANT SUGGESTION! (Score:5, Interesting)
What better way to weed out possible terrorist than strip searching everyone who does not prominently display a $0.10 pewter cross.
BRILLIANT!
I don't suppose you actually work for the TSA? Sounds like you were born for that career.
Re:Should read (Score:5, Funny)
Mandatory bacon sandwiches before boarding the plane. Everybody wins.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mandatory bacon sandwiches before boarding the plane. Everybody wins.
Accompanied by a snifter of fine cognac. Or at least a shot of cheap vodka. No swallow - no fly.
Damn, I'd even pay a couple of bucks for that kind of security...
Re:Should read (Score:4, Informative)
So every muslim that still wants to fly the plane is a terrorist. You're not thinking this through ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To advocate that idea seriously, it's not enough to be an anti-Muslim bigot: you have to be anti-Semitic as well.
Re:Should read (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't the TSA strip searching Muslim males? That's easy:
1. They couldn't identify which men are Muslim or not. It's not like there's a big sign written on each Muslim saying "I am a Muslim" (and if there were, a reasonably smart terrorist wouldn't wear it when they went to bomb a plane).
2. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, Islam included. Treating members of a particular faith as second-class citizens would definitely violate that. And yes, there are Muslims citizens of the US, some of them currently serving the country in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are more loyal to the US and what it stands for than you are.
3. At least 99.9% of Muslim men aren't terrorists. You're arguing for strip searching about 800 million people in order to find a few thousand people. Your odds are only slightly better than strip searching the 99.99% of Christian men who aren't terrorists to find the 0.01% who are (e.g. Tim McVeigh or members of the Real IRA).
Re:Should read (Score:4, Insightful)
>2. The First Amendment of the Constitution [...]Treating members of a particular faith as second-class citizens would definitely violate that
Right. So we treat EVERYONE like second-class citizens so it is fair.
Not that I disagree with you, I am just pissed about the whole plane security thing. Typical reaction? They will spent hundreds of million dollars to perform background checks on passengers to see if they have ever attended a fireworks show. Passengers wearing clothing depicting fireworks or who have laptops with a fireworks screen saver will be banned. If the "firecracker terrorist" wore an earring, earrings will be banned from planes. You get the idea- a bunch of pretty meaningless steps to further ruin air travel, delay passengers, violate privacy, push prices up, all so people will feel "safe" again.
Re:Should read (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but nearly 99.9% of terrorists are Muslim.
By that logic we should strip search anyone who breathes, after all 100% of terrorists breathe air.
Re:Fireworks? (Score:5, Funny)
You realize of course that this is a relatively low bar. For some Senators, a fork would be "quite sophisticated".
Re:Time to exterminate Muslims (Score:4, Insightful)
First we need to exterminate the Catholics, apparently paedophiles the bunch of'em...
Oh, wait, it seems that instead, the acts of individuals or comparatively small groups are not characteristic of everyone who shares some label with them. Didn't you get the memo?
No wonder you are anonymous - and coward certainly fits the bill. Desire for murder is strong in you, yes? So you share at least one trait with the terrorists then.
Re:Simple steps to terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes we need to stop worrying, but you missed a point.
You can't bring down an airliner with a matchhead bomb. You can't bring down your own seat with a matchhead bomb. All you can do is set your trousers on fire like this nonce did. The same goes for the idiot who tried to mix a bomb with liquids he took on board. The idea that you can cook serious explosives in airplane toilets with the chemicals he had is laughable, yet we have these ridiculous rules about the liquids we can take on board because of this non-existent threat.
People in the security services have an interest in exaggerating threats in order to improve the position in society and the personal power.