Knee-jerk response to attempted plane bomb

jonny72

To quote the times..

"Following the attempt, emergency security measures were imposed in the United States and at Heathrow. In the final hour before landing in the US, passengers are now banned from standing up, using toilets and holding blankets."

So in the US/UK/Wheverever, homeland security has failed and they are now resorting to telling passengers to sit rigidly still and hold onto their pee? They are also telling would-be bombers to set-off their bombs before the final hour of the flight? read the quoted above slowly again, its literally one of the most stupid 'emergency measures' I have ever read in my life..

As far as I know, the attempted bomber paid for a one way ticket to the US in cash and was already on the watch list, coupled with the fact that his father tried to warn authorities about him. Despite the sheer number of passengers, still quite a shocking oversight

PLIIM

Yes, they will have a specific timeframe in which to do their deed now.
How stupid.

If they really wanted an effective rule.
Ban carry-on luggage and search passengers getting in the plane.

But the odd plane lost is cheaper to the industry than actually making flying safe. So they come up with these stupid idea to pretend they care.

jonny72

PLIIM wrote: »

But the odd plane lost is cheaper to the industry than actually making flying safe. So they come up with these stupid idea to pretend they care.

A bombing is a lot more high profile than a plane crashing, both have negative aftereffects on the plane industry.

A bombing of this kind, if successful, would have likely set the industry back quite a bit. Passengers are nervous people, they can and will switch to trains, etc if bad things happen to planes.

silverharp

PLIIM wrote: »

Yes, they will have a specific timeframe in which to If they really wanted an effective rule.
Ban carry-on luggage and search passengers getting in the plane.

I'd agree if your muslim , if not the restrictions should not apply. I'd feel safer and would be less inconvenienced.

Bottle_of_Smoke

silverharp wrote: »

I'd agree if your muslim , if not the restrictions should not apply. I'd feel safer and would be less inconvenienced.

Hmmm....

Security: Are you a Muslim?

Mohammed: No, I'm an atheist, have you read Richard Dawkin's new book?

Security: Go ahead sir

nesf

PLIIM wrote: »

If they really wanted an effective rule.
Ban carry-on luggage and search passengers getting in the plane.

And how exactly are parents of very young children going to do without formula for the baby's bottle or nappies and what have you? Not that it would stop a determined bomber from getting things onto a plane or anything.

aurelius79

silverharp wrote: »

I'd agree if your muslim , if not the restrictions should not apply. I'd feel safer and would be less inconvenienced.

I honestly don't know what to make of this statement. Is he serious? Was it just a bad joke? I'm confused.

AMIIAM

This problem of aircraft targetting by ( Moslems, or people with dark skins,or people wearing their traditional clothing): call them what you wish. Or even Al Queada!!!! IF??? AMERICA and their complicit poodles, ie, UNITED KINGDOM. kept their snouts of other oil rich nation's affairs, albeit the now infamous warcry of WMD'S or the other slogan; REGIME CHANGE!!! the world would be a much safer place

silverharp

aurelius79 wrote: »

I honestly don't know what to make of this statement. Is he serious? Was it just a bad joke? I'm confused.

Just so we are clear, here is what 50g of PETN can do. So the question is are all the security check just for show? It would seem reasonable to introduce some form of racial and demographic profiling. So mr and mrs smith travelling with 2 kids should not have to go through the for show security checks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZENvUVG6TE

Nick_oliveri

silverharp wrote: »

Just so we are clear, here is what 50g of PETN can do. So the question is are all the security check just for show? It would seem reasonable to introduce some form of racial and demographic profiling. So mr and mrs smith travelling with 2 kids should not have to go through the for show security checks.

I think thats a sickening statement TBH. Its right to profile the Arabs coming and going on planes because of the color of their skin? And lets not stop with the Moslems now that a Nigerian man has been arrested, lets profile them blacks as well. Sure when we are at it, those Asians, they bombed Pearl Harbor (or have we forgotten about that).

Sure feck it, profile those Irish lads too, they could have links with terrorist organizations. Oh no, wait, they are white. Damn, it could all have been so easy...

Im sure there are plenty of whities in "Al Queda" that you haven't heard about on Fox or Sky. Hell, there was a french operative in the TV series "Sleeper Cell". Did you see that? ZOMG. They could even employ tactics like a reverse Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic thunder to become white like us.

Mahatma coat

Amazin init

Just last week there were announcements that the Security measures at airports were being eased, then this

Very COINCIDENTAL eh?


anyone else thinkin False Flag, scare the Sheeple type operation.

Seriously, Guy gets on in Nigeria, Flys to London and then on to the US, he's on a US Watchlist but still gets a Visa Even though he Dosent have a Return Ticket.


PATSY

SeanW

Mahatma coat wrote: »

anyone else thinkin False Flag, scare the Sheeple type operation.

Seriously, Guy gets on in Nigeria, Flys to London and then on to the US, he's on a US Watchlist but still gets a Visa Even though he Dosent have a Return Ticket.

His FATHER had reported that he had potentially become a dangerous Islamic radical. He had a multi-entry Visa that ran for a specific length of time, and was thusly not dependent on travel plans. He was also just 2 scrapes of luck away from killing himself (along with everyone else on the plane) so there's no chance he was just play-acting.

Oh and, Conspiracy Theories is thataway!

Mahatma coat

yeah, I'm just sayin, tis a little coincedental that they an announce the relaxin of security measures and then bam as if on cue some nutter tries to blow up a plane.

next thing you know the security measures become more ridiculus thn ever.

Buffy the bitch

Strange one alright. I was doing some reading on it can't bother looking for the link but the guy actually tried to get on a flight without a passport when he was in Africa not to mention paid 3k in cash for his ticket, not only take but his own family rang the cops to say he was in with these people in Yemen.

Ban carry-on luggage and search passengers getting in the plane.

What a stupid statement. I could be wrong about this but sisn't he have it on his body? Even if he didn't the likes of Semtex can't be stopped. If a guy really wants to blow up a plane I would reckon it could be done easily.

The US for the last month has been carrying out bombings in Yemen so no surprise really someone tried taking revenge and I've no doubt sometime they will.

You only have to be lucky once, they have to be lucky all the time.

2011

It would seem reasonable to introduce some form of racial and demographic profiling. So mr and mrs smith travelling with 2 kids should not have to go through the for show security checks.

In the real world profiling does not work as has been prooved in the past your enemy does not always "fit" the profile you would expect. Even see this with our history, Edward Carson was born in Dublin and Wolfe Tone was a prodestant that qualified as a barrister from King's Inns in London!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Carson,_Baron_Carson

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

silverharp

2011 wrote: »

In the real world profiling does not work as has been prooved in the past your enemy does not always "fit" the profile you would expect. Even see this with our history, Edward Carson was born in Dublin and Wolfe Tone was a prodestant that qualified as a barrister from King's Inns in London!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Carson,_Baron_Carson

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

it will work until it doesnt. Like I say if the name of the game is reducing the risk of someone coming on board with a couple of tablespoons of explosive then the seach pocedures have to be that good, they never were and probably wont be going forward. if they are to be that good then it would make flying very unpleasant for everyone. currently one could eliminate 95% (guess) of passangers on a flight and assume them to be near 0% risk so they should only be subject to the standard measures the other 5% would have to be subject to the measures that actually work.
Otherwise get creative and allow certain people like off duty police and military to carry tazers on board etc.
Or just accept the risk that getting killed by terrorists while flying adds marginally to the overall risk of flying.

APM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Seriously, Guy gets on in Nigeria, Flys to London and then on to the US, he's on a US Watchlist but still gets a Visa Even though he Dosent have a Return Ticket.


PATSY

It has been widely reported that he did have a return ticket, but paid for it with cash

vinylbomb

As a frequent flyer I would be happy to have to go through more stringent checks on each flight that cost 30 mins security time on each flight than run the risk of ending up dead.

This particular bunch of radicals piss me off no end. International travel (while becoming less so with the advent of video conference calling and data services) is becoming such a major pain in the hole.

I understand the concept of collateral damage as a weapon, but these dickheads are the biggest **** in the history of the modern world.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet

Let America turn itself into a police state.
It's halfway there already.
Fact is, they set themselves up as a target.
They are military aggressors whom bring terror to ordinary civilians in a half dozen countries around they world, they do not respect human rights nor the sovereignty of other nations.

No one is bombing France, Ireland, Sweden, Norway and loads of other western democracies.
This guy could have detonated his device over loads of different countries but he didn't, he choose the US.

It's sad that innocent people are in the firing line and i wish these nutjobs would target the US military instead. I suppose they can't, the US military is too heavily armoured and is able to hide behind a wall of technological advances like un-manned drones. So they go after soft targets like civilian aircraft. It's repulsive. But not entirely unpredictable.

FlutterinBantam

America is nowhere near a police state, if you want that, try Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia.

Every nutjob wants a pop at them for no other reason than they are the top dog.

US is totally correct to prevent nutjobs entering it's jurisdiction.

Buffy the bitch

silverharp wrote: »

it will work until it doesnt. Like I say if the name of the game is reducing the risk of someone coming on board with a couple of tablespoons of explosive then the seach pocedures have to be that good, they never were and probably wont be going forward. if they are to be that good then it would make flying very unpleasant for everyone. currently one could eliminate 95% (guess) of passangers on a flight and assume them to be near 0% risk so they should only be subject to the standard measures the other 5% would have to be subject to the measures that actually work.
Otherwise get creative and allow certain people like off duty police and military to carry tazers on board etc.
Or just accept the risk that getting killed by terrorists while flying adds marginally to the overall risk of flying.

So anyone who isn't white and isn't speaking English more security checks for them and what measures actually work?

So mr and mrs smith travelling with 2 kids should not have to go through the for show security checks.

Sure they'd only start bringing their kids on the plane if that was the case.

You have more chance on dying in a normal plane crash rather than been in one which is blown up by someone.

vinylbomb

RedPlanet wrote: »

Fact is, they set themselves up as a target.
They are military aggressors whom bring terror to ordinary civilians in a half dozen countries around they world, they do not respect human rights nor the sovereignty of other nations.

Problem here is: I AM THE TARGET. SO ARE YOU

If you get on a plane you're fair game the these nuts. Even people who are Muslim, but arent radical enough for their liking are fair game.

RedPlanet

vinylbomb wrote: »

Problem here is: I AM THE TARGET. SO ARE YOU

If you get on a plane you're fair game the these nuts. Even people who are Muslim, but arent radical enough for their liking are fair game.

Rubbish.
This guy could have dedonated his device over loads of western countries.
He choose the US.
His target was the US, not Ireland.

aurelius79

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

America is nowhere near a police state, if you want that, try Russia, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia.

Every nutjob wants a pop at them for no other reason than they are the top dog.

US is totally correct to prevent nutjobs entering it's jurisdiction.

So FB, where abouts in the U.S. do you currently live? I spent 15 years there and I can tell you now it is a police state. It's especially worse after 9/11 because now police can legally arrest and detain you with no charge whatsoever.

I left the U.S. about two years after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq becuae I didn't want to support a government like the Bush administration.

vinylbomb

RedPlanet wrote: »

Rubbish.
This guy could have dedonated his device over loads of western countries.
He choose the US.
His target was the US, not Ireland.

So what about the Dutch on the plane then?

By your argument, anyone travelling to the States is worth a shot.

What about the Bali bombings? What about the London bombings? What about the Madrid bombings?

Dont try and let your anti-capitalism/anti-US thoughts cloud your judgement here. The target is the West as much as the US.

You live in the West if you live in Ireland - Jihadists don't give a monkeys if you have pale skin and drink Guinness.

aurelius79

vinylbomb wrote: »

So what about the Dutch on the plane then?

By your argument, anyone travelling to the States is worth a shot.

What about the Bali bombings? What about the London bombings? What about the Madrid bombings?

Dont try and let your anti-capitalism/anti-US thoughts cloud your judgement here. The target is the West as much as the US.

You live in the West if you live in Ireland - Jihadists don't give a monkeys if you have pale skin and drink Guinness.

Do you have any proof that these bombings were carried out by actual Islamic fundamentalists and not just some "former" CIA operative living in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Is it so hard to believe that the U.S. just needed an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?

RedPlanet

vinylbomb wrote: »

So what about the Dutch on the plane then?

If the guy wanted to bomb Holland, then i'm sure he would have either denotated over Holland or choose some other method of striking the people of Holland. He probably won't care what corporate brand he's using.

vinylbomb wrote: »

What about the Bali bombings?

Local issue.
A local extremist group with their own agenda.
Jemaah Islamiah. They want to establish an islamic state comprising a few SE Asian countries.

vinylbomb wrote: »

What about the London bombings?

They are involved with Iraq, so yeah the UK is a target, albeit a smaller one since they have a smaller presence.

vinylbomb wrote: »

What about the Madrid bombings?

Because of their involvment with Iraq. Once they withdrew their forces they are not being targetted.

vinylbomb wrote: »

You live in the West if you live in Ireland - Jihadists don't give a monkeys if you have pale skin and drink Guinness.

Ireland is a joke of a banana republic. If the Jihadists wanted to blow up somethnig in Dublin, they easily could. We are not a target because we are not occupying islamic countries like the USA (and their UK lakeys do)

silverharp

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

So anyone who isn't white and isn't speaking English more security checks for them and what measures actually work?



Sure they'd only start bringing their kids on the plane if that was the case.

You have more chance on dying in a normal plane crash rather than been in one which is blown up by someone.

It doesnt make sense to make people jump through hoops unless the precedures work, its not for me to say what works and doesnt, if they go down the passive route of the new style xray machines, thats cool if it works. if the alternative in some form of 3 to 5 minute personalised seach then I'd prefer it to be targeted or not introduced on the assumption that the chances are less then the overall risk of flying in the first place (my prefernce if pushed). As for who fits the profile again not for me to say but I could start the list the other way and say who has a 0% chance of knowlingly carrying a device on board.

If they settle for stupid rules like not allowed to bring hand luggage on board or not allowed to use the toilets then its just mindess "knee jerk" reaction as per the thread title.

Buffy the bitch

vinylbomb wrote: »

So what about the Dutch on the plane then?

By your argument, anyone travelling to the States is worth a shot.

Well that happens. If I'm flying to America I might have to go to a different country first and to be honest I'm sure most people on the plane more than likely were actually Americans returning home.

vinylbomb wrote: »

What about the Bali bombings? What about the London bombings? What about the Madrid bombings?.

Madrid bombings were done because of the election coming up and the opposition party wanted to pull out of Afghanistan. Same kinda thing with the London bombing. England bring their war machine to other countries so they get hit back (by some guys who learn how to make bombs on the net I wouldn't even call them Al Queda)

vinylbomb wrote: »

Dont try and let your anti-capitalism/anti-US thoughts cloud your judgement here. The target is the West as much as the US.

Any country that is in the likes of Afghanistan are the targets and rightly so, won't be long before Canada is hit IMO.

vinylbomb wrote: »

You live in the West if you live in Ireland - Jihadists don't give a monkeys if you have pale skin and drink Guinness.

You are talking utter bollocks. Is this the crap your government tells you as to why they should be America's ass buddy?

RedPlanet

silverharp wrote: »

. if the alternative in some form of 3 to 5 minute personalised seach then I'd prefer it to be targeted or not introduced on the assumption that the chances are less then the overall risk of flying in the first place (my prefernce if pushed). As for who fits the profile again not for me to say but I could start the list the other way and say who has a 0% chance of knowlingly carrying a device on board.

If they settle for stupid rules like not allowed to bring hand luggage on board or not allowed to use the toilets then its just mindess "knee jerk" reaction as per the thread title.

The problem with your idea is that the jihadists can simply adapt.
They could do a "tiger kidnaping" type raid whereby they strap explosives onto a white middle class westerner while pointing a gun to his family's heads at home. If he doesn't go thru with it, or balls it up in someway, the family are killed. I think the IRA did something similar once involving forcing an innocent to commandeer a vehicle laden with explosives up to a barracks.

inforfun

You can think of even more rules to make a flight hell for the normal people but as long as security checks, like on schiphol, are done by people from private security companies it will never be watertight.
These compaies only interest is making a profit. therefor the recruit employees with little or no education or motivation. Pay them feck all.

This nigerian guy was able to walk through security because there was a security guy who is paid €800 a month and who just doesn't give a f*ck.

For those who can read Dutch, this is the job description for a security job at Schiphol Airport.

ei.sdraob

Notice how the potential terrorist was apprehended by passengers

before 9/11 if theres a hijacking you play along and you have a good chance of getting out alive (terrorists land somewhere and get boarded by special forces, or their demands are met)

after 9/11 theres a good chance your plane would be used as flying bomb, so i dont see many passengers sitting around twiddling thumbs in a situation


the very act of crashing the planes into buildings made it extremely tough for any potential to be terrorists to do their thing, as passengers are likely to take things into own hands

and yes the media as usual are over reacting, people are dieing on our roads this xmas and that barely gets any airtime on news

silverharp

RedPlanet wrote: »

The problem with your idea is that the jihadists can simply adapt.
They could do a "tiger kidnaping" type raid whereby they strap explosives onto a white middle class westerner while pointing a gun to his family's heads at home. If he doesn't go thru with it, or balls it up in someway, the family are killed. I think the IRA did something similar once involving forcing an innocent to commandeer a vehicle laden with explosives up to a barracks.

perhaps but deal with that risk if it happens, it will always be a game of cat and mouse if the underlying issues are not dealt with, for all I know (and I dont) someone could be parked at the end of a US airport with a machine gun or rocket lanucher






Here is a CNN piece with Ron Paul where he broadens it out and asks why they "hate us" at 6min 40 there was a wtf moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y7ROCPCjHQ

Buffy the bitch

You see he hits the nail on the head they hate us because we bomb them and occupy their country.

I actually like Ron Paul was looking him up a lot last year and I think his foreign policy is right on the money from what I've been listening too.

Im sure you all heard as well as I did, that there were flames on the plane when this guy lit up his 'bomb'
yet here are his supposed underpants, they dont look like they went on firre to me, unless the were flame retardent jocks. Id say a fart would do more damage...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/northwest-airlines-bomb-photos/story?id=9436297

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PLIIM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You missed a bit

PLIIM

aurelius79 wrote: »

So FB, where abouts in the U.S. do you currently live? I spent 15 years there and I can tell you now it is a police state. It's especially worse after 9/11 because now police can legally arrest and detain you with no charge whatsoever.

I left the U.S. about two years after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq becuae I didn't want to support a government like the Bush administration.

You must have been living in San Quentin.
The rest of the US is not a police state.

Pushtrak

silverharp wrote: »

Otherwise get creative and allow certain people like off duty police and military to carry tazers on board etc.

I would mostly agree. I wonder why you would say off duty and not on duty though. Their lives are on the line just as much. Obviously no system is perfect, so it isn't much of a point in bringing up that this system isn't perfect.

Obviously airport security needs to be effective, but once it becomes effective enough, a new type of target will be found and the cycle will start again. That much is obvious.

If you really want to have a f'ing nuts idea that would actually work as security on a plane, hows this? On getting on a plane, you take a sedative and sleep out the trip. Tell me of a more effective solution than that.

Scofflaw

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

You have more chance on dying in a normal plane crash rather than been in one which is blown up by someone.

In the US, you have more chance of being shot by the police than killed by terrorists - and that's including 9/11.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

aurelius79 wrote: »

Do you have any proof that these bombings were carried out by actual Islamic fundamentalists and not just some "former" CIA operative living in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Is it so hard to believe that the U.S. just needed an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?

you destroyed any chance of being taken credibly with that bs CT argument.

vinylbomb

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

You are talking utter bollocks. Is this the crap your government tells you as to why they should be America's ass buddy?

I'm Irish....born and raised......however Ireland has always been an ass buddy of the States in most regards apart from militarily, so you're not wrong there:D


Amazing how these threads get hijacked so quickly by the CT loons and the anti-America crowd.

vinylbomb

Can I as a question here - directed at Red Planet and Buffy the Bitch

Are you saying you feel that because of their involvement in Iraq etc, any person or asset of a particular country (mainly USA/Canada/Britain) is a legitimate target for a terrorist organisation, and can be considered fair game?

Edit: To clarify - by person I mean citizen, and asset I mean company affiliated with.

Pushtrak

vinylbomb wrote: »

Are you saying you feel that because of their involvement in Iraq etc, any person or asset of a particular country (mainly USA/Canada/Britain) is a legitimate target for a terrorist organisation, and can be considered fair game?

I wouldn't say "fair game" is appropriate. Put themselves as targets, most definitely. The fact that innocents wind up the targets is abhorrent.

donkey balls

Pushtrak wrote: »

I wouldn't say "fair game" is appropriate. Put themselves as targets, most definitely. The fact that innocents wind up the targets is abhorrent.

I worked for an US airline based here in Ireland proir to the 9/11 attacks were we had in place security profiling(for obvoius reasons im not going go into them).
these were in place due to the fact that it was a US carrier and after the 9/11 attacks more stringent rules were brought in by the company and the dept of transport, terrorists dont discrimanate between cival or milatary objects (me&my co workers all Irish would be seen as a legitimate target)

Mahatma coat

Yes, yes you are, and it all comes back to the concept of 'Death to Collabarators'

Those people who work as 'Contractors' even the ones who claen the offices, they made a choice, now it may have been about teh money or job security, but as far as the Muzziefundies are concerned if you are willin to take the Americans Money you are a target

RedPlanet

vinylbomb wrote: »

Can I as a question here - directed at Red Planet and Buffy the Bitch

Are you saying you feel that because of their involvement in Iraq etc, any person or asset of a particular country (mainly USA/Canada/Britain) is a legitimate target for a terrorist organisation, and can be considered fair game?

Edit: To clarify - by person I mean citizen, and asset I mean company affiliated with.

Non-combantants are not legitimate targets.
Rather they become "collateral damage"; that is a term invented by the Americans as they slaughtered thousands of non-combatant Vietnamese.

Oh and btw, Canada was not a member of the "Coalition of the Willing" so don't be lumping them in with the US and UK.