QuoteWASHINGTON – U.S. officials say a Northwest Airlines passenger from Nigeria said he was acting on behalf of al-Qaida when he tried to blow up a flight Friday as it landed in Detroit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_airliner_disturbance
Are we sure he really, really just didn't want to go to Detroit?
Wow, it's been a while since something serious was tried over here. Glad it was thwarted.
The article I saw said the guy had firecrackers, which doesn't seem that serious.
Quote from: ulmont on December 25, 2009, 08:16:30 PM
The article I saw said the guy had firecrackers, which doesn't seem that serious.
That was the initial reports. Apparently it's something more serious then that.
Quote from: katmai on December 25, 2009, 08:02:56 PM
Are we sure he really, really just didn't want to go to Detroit?
At least punishing him will be easy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo
Any speculations as to what kind of explosives he had?
I'm inclined to blame the Soviets and their proxy army, The Red Army Faction, for this outrag.e
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 03:13:29 PM
Any speculations as to what kind of explosives he had?
Apparently the type that lights your balls on fire. He seems to have 3rd degree burns to his thighs due to this thing catching fire in his lap.
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 03:13:29 PM
Any speculations as to what kind of explosives he had?
Dutch news says it was PETN.
Obama vacations in Hawaii as Detroit burns? Typical.
Likely means flying is going to be even more of a bitch for a few weeks to come :(
PETA
Quote from: Fate on December 26, 2009, 06:51:13 PM
Obama vacations in Hawaii as Detroit burns? Typical.
Seems very Bush-like. He should've learned to not celebrate early.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2009, 05:35:34 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 26, 2009, 03:13:29 PM
Any speculations as to what kind of explosives he had?
Apparently the type that lights your balls on fire. He seems to have 3rd degree burns to his thighs due to this thing catching fire in his lap.
You have to admit, it takes balls to light your balls on fire.
YAY! MORE SECURATAY!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html
QuoteIn the wake of the terrorism attempt Friday on a Northwest Airlines flight, federal officials on Saturday imposed new restrictions on travelers that could lengthen lines at airports and limit the ability of international passengers to move about an airplane.
The government was vague about the steps it was taking, saying that it wanted the security experience to be "unpredictable" and that passengers would not find the same measures at every airport — a prospect that may upset airlines and travelers alike.
But several airlines released detailed information about the restrictions, saying that passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps. It was not clear how often the rule would affect domestic flights.
Overseas passengers will be restricted to only one carry-on item, and domestic passengers will probably face longer security lines. That was already the case in some airports Saturday, in the United States and overseas.
The restrictions will again change the routine of air travel, which has undergone an upheaval since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001 and three later attempts at air terrorism.
Soon after the attempt on Friday, travelers at airports around the world began experiencing heightened screening in security lines. On one flight, from Newark Liberty International Airport to Little Rock, Ark., flight attendants kept cabin lights on for the entire trip instead of dimming them for takeoff and landing.
The limits, which brought to mind some of the most stringent policies after the 2001 attacks, come at a difficult time for the airline industry.
Travel has declined about 20 percent since 2008 because of the economy, and airlines have been dealing with numerous delays in the past week because of snowstorms on the East Coast and in the Midwest.
Airline industry executives said the new steps would complicate travel as vacationers return home from holiday trips and could also cause travelers to cancel plans for flights in 2010.
But the government seemed to discount those concerns. The homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, said in a statement Saturday that new measures were "designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere." She said passengers should proceed with their holiday plans and "as always, be observant and aware of their surroundings and report any suspicious behavior or activity to law enforcement officials."
The Transportation Security Administration, which governs security at airports and on airplanes in the United States, had no immediate comment on the steps. There also was no statement from the Air Transport Association, the trade group for American carriers.
Two foreign airlines, Air Canada and British Airways, disclosed the steps in notices on their Web sites. The airlines said the rules had been implemented by government security agencies including the T.S.A.
"Among other things," the statement on Air Canada's Web site read, "during the final hour of flight customers must remain seated, will not be allowed to access carry-on baggage, or have personal belongings or other items on their laps."
The suspect in the Friday attempt, identified as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, tried to ignite his incendiary device in the final hour of the flight while the plane was descending into Detroit.
On its Web site, American Airlines said the T.S.A. had ordered new measures for flights departing from foreign locations to the United States, including mandatory screening of all passengers at airport gates during the boarding process. All carry-on items would be screened at security checkpoints and again at boarding, the airline said. It urged passengers to leave extra time for screening and boarding.
In effect, the restrictions mean that passengers on flights of 90 minutes or less would most likely not be able to leave their seats at all, since airlines do not allow passengers to walk around the cabin while a plane is climbing to its cruising altitude.
The new restrictions began to be instituted Saturday on flights from Canada and Europe to the United States. Air Canada said it was waiving fees for the first checked bag, and it told passengers to be prepared for delays, cancellations and missed connections because of the new limits.
At airports Saturday, travelers recounted the immediate differences they experienced. Though passengers arriving from Frankfurt passed speedily through customs at Kennedy Airport in New York, they said that in Germany the security was intensified.
"I really was surprised," one passenger, Eva Clesle, said about the level of scrutiny in Frankfurt, adding that officials had inspected backpacks by opening "every single zip."
In Rochester, N.Y., a passenger waiting in a security line said she had seen other passengers removed for additional screening.
Many of Air Canada's flights in and out of La Guardia Airport in New York were canceled or delayed, and ticket agents blamed new security screenings.
Actually, I think the best way to handle inflight security would be to have all passengers sedated for the duration of the flight. Personally, I would much rather be put to sleep for 9 or 10 hours and stored in a bunk bed for transatlantic flights than having to spend the time trying to ignore the people around me, cramped in a seat that allows no leg freedom.
Quote from: Syt on December 27, 2009, 01:23:13 AM
Actually, I think the best way to handle inflight security would be to have all passengers sedated for the duration of the flight. Personally, I would much rather be put to sleep for 9 or 10 hours and stored in a bunk bed for transatlantic flights than having to spend the time trying to ignore the people around me, cramped in a seat that allows no leg freedom.
Hmm, now we just need some altruistic terrorist to come up with a scheme that would require increasing legroom and wider seats as the security solution.
If the new security arrangements prevent just one terrorist from setting his balls alight then they will be justified :huh:
Great balls of fire!
This guy's father had contacted US authorities, with concerns about his son's extreme political views, prior to the flight taking place :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8431470.stm
why not stop airtravel to, from and in the US alltogether?
would result in a 100% succesrate in stopping terror on the airlines flying there
QuoteBut several airlines released detailed information about the restrictions, saying that passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps. It was not clear how often the rule would affect domestic flights.
What the fuck?
I'm guessing this will also include paperback books, iPods, and a notepad and pencil.
Maybe I'll fly back to Canada, then take a short flight from there to DC. Or I'll swim.
Perhaps the flight attendants will conduct a meditational program during the hour pre-landing?
Another reason not to come to the US. :cool:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 27, 2009, 05:45:01 AM
Maybe I'll fly back to Canada, then take a short flight from there to DC.
Followed by the 12 hour interrogation about why you didn't fly directly in to the US :lol:
I've given up on the flying for the time being; I can't reconcile current "security" procedures with having a good time.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 27, 2009, 05:57:04 AM
I've given up on the flying for the time being; I can't reconcile current "security" procedures with having a good time.
mh, I'll be flying into Egypt soon and maybe a trip to the US later next year but after that I guess I'll avoid taking the plane too. Too much hassle.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 27, 2009, 04:23:13 AM
why not stop airtravel to, from and in the US alltogether?
would result in a 100% succesrate in stopping terror on the airlines flying there
Works for me.
So after the Shoebomber they start checking our shoes, are they gonna start checking all our underwear now? :moon:
What about these reports that his dad is a Nigerian banker? I didn't think those actually existed. Now at least I know who has been sending me those Emails.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2009, 12:12:17 PM
What about these reports that his dad is a Nigerian banker? I didn't think those actually existed. Now at least I know who has been sending me those Emails.
of course they exist. Someone has to get that money to Switzerland no?
I figured they would use Swiss bankers.
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 05:50:30 AM
Another reason not to come to the US. :cool:
Marcin always showing us the silver lining. :hug:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2009, 11:30:43 AM
So after the Shoebomber they start checking our shoes, are they gonna start checking all our underwear now? :moon:
First they came for our shoes, but I didn't say anything...
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 03:23:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2009, 11:30:43 AM
So after the Shoebomber they start checking our shoes, are they gonna start checking all our underwear now? :moon:
First they came for our shoes, but I didn't say anything...
:lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 03:23:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2009, 11:30:43 AM
So after the Shoebomber they start checking our shoes, are they gonna start checking all our underwear now? :moon:
First they came for our shoes, but I didn't say anything...
I seriously doubt there was a circumstance where a man went for your feet and you didn't say anything.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2009, 12:03:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 27, 2009, 03:23:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2009, 11:30:43 AM
So after the Shoebomber they start checking our shoes, are they gonna start checking all our underwear now? :moon:
First they came for our shoes, but I didn't say anything...
I seriously doubt there was a circumstance where a man went for your feet and you didn't say anything.
:lol:
According to the BBC the US is planning to remove the screen map from some flights so that targets can't be pinpointed.
I love that map :weep:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2009, 03:07:35 AM
According to the BBC the US is planning to remove the screen map from some flights so that targets can't be pinpointed.
I love that map :weep:
God, this is so retarded. What next? Randomize departure and arrival times so that terrorists are confused (BA is already doing that with luggage, btw).
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2009, 03:26:27 AMRandomize departure and arrival times so that terrorists are confused (BA is already doing that with luggage, btw).
BA's been randomising arrival times of luggage for years :)
Anyway, I love how this thing works. Take the idea about the flight map, for example - not only this is completely retarded, but it completely fails to prevent a situation like the one - where a know AQ-linked suspect, who was ratted on by his own father, carries a fucking bomb on board of a plane. A case like this should have been easily prevented not only with the safety measures put in place following 911, but actually in the most lax and devil-may-care security systems in place - but it wasn't just showing how incompetent and falling the system in place is.
So what the response is? Making even more idiotic rules that in no way address the security risk that just happened, but the control freaks running this shit hope will get through because the mob is scared and thus can be persuaded with more crap.
Jesus christ. I hate humanity so much.
And before someone asks, no I won't tell you how I REALLY feel. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2009, 03:33:42 AM
And before someone asks, no I won't tell you how I REALLY feel. :lol:
Ah hell, I actually agreed with that rant, though. :P
At this rate sooner or later I'll be asked to fly naked.
Agree with marti (and others); one tosser (on the terrorist watch lists) fails to do much but we hand anti-Western forces victory on a plate with retarded and disruptive security measures :mad:
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
Blame the Dutch.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2009, 03:32:15 AM
Anyway, I love how this thing works. Take the idea about the flight map, for example - not only this is completely retarded, but it completely fails to prevent a situation like the one - where a know AQ-linked suspect, who was ratted on by his own father, carries a fucking bomb on board of a plane. A case like this should have been easily prevented not only with the safety measures put in place following 911, but actually in the most lax and devil-may-care security systems in place - but it wasn't just showing how incompetent and falling the system in place is.
So what the response is? Making even more idiotic rules that in no way address the security risk that just happened, but the control freaks running this shit hope will get through because the mob is scared and thus can be persuaded with more crap.
Jesus christ. I hate humanity so much.
This way, though, the idiots at TSA and Homeland Security, among others, can claim to be doing things instead of being (rightfully) blamed for being incompetent idiots. It's an exercise in CYA.
Why we'll never have to worry about planes smacking into buildings anymore.
QuoteFollowing lesson of United 93, air travelers are quick to react on their own to threats aloft
DETROIT (AP) — They heard a pop that sounded like fireworks. They saw a glow of flame followed by a rush of smoke. And that was enough for passengers on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to pounce.
From several seats away, Dutch tourist Jasper Schuringa says he jumped to extinguish a fire ignited by a quiet man who just moments before allegedly told passengers his stomach was upset and pulled a blanket over himself. Schuringa said his first thought wasn't to signal a flight attendant or wait for an air marshal to break cover, but rather, "He's trying to blow up the plane."
"I basically reacted directly," Schuringa said Saturday in an interview with CNN. "I didn't think. I just jumped. I just went over there and tried to save the plane."
Aviation safety experts once would have called Schuringa's actions a mistake and cautioned passengers against fighting back during hijackings and other crises in the air. That was before the Sept. 11 attacks and the actions of passengers on United Flight 93, who learned while aloft about the hijacked jets that slammed earlier that day into New York's World Trade Center.
They staged a cabin revolt against the al-Qaida terrorists who had taken control of their flight and died when their plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pa. But they succeeded in keeping the jet from destroying another building that day, and their story became legend.
"I don't think people are going to sit back and let somebody kill them in the process of fulfilling their extremist agenda or whatever it happens to be," said Dave Heffernan, who helps oversee self-defense training for commercial flight crews at Valenica Community College in Orlando, Fla. "People have talked about it. They've thought about it. They have a plan of action."
On Saturday, a day after the failed attack on Northwest 253, federal prosecutors charged Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, a native of Nigeria, with trying to destroy the airliner with a device containing a high explosive attached to his body. They alleged that Abdulmutallab set off the device — sparking a fire instead of an explosion — as the flight from Amsterdam descended toward Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
Schuringa, of Amsterdam, told CNN that he didn't think about his own safety when he extinguished the fire with his hands. He and other passengers said that several people on board, including members of the flight crew, then joined him in taking Abdulmutallab to first class to strip off his clothes and search for any more explosives.
Schuringa did not immediately reply to e-mail and phone messages from The Associated Press.
"In a matter of minutes everything was settled down. ... The passengers were proactive. We just did it. There was nothing to talk about," said Syed Jafry, 57.
Another passenger, Richelle Keepman, 24, of Oconomowoc, Wis., said passengers were later interviewed by authorities and released from the airport. When Schuringa came through the area, "We were all clapping," she said.
Schuringa joins the passengers on United 93 and others who have leapt into action to defend themselves aloft since 9/11. Just three months after the attacks, Briton Richard Reid was overpowered by passengers and crew members on a flight from Paris to Miami as he tried to ignite plastic explosives hidden in his shoes. A doctor onboard went so far as to inject the restrained Reid with a sedative.
Passengers aren't only responding to obvious acts of terror. In June, two off-duty officers handcuffed a traveler who took off his clothes and kicked and punched a flight attendant on a US Airways flight to Los Angeles from Charlotte, N.C. In April 2008, passengers duct-taped a drunken man to his seat after he attacked a United Airlines flight attendant on a trip to Los Angeles from Hong Kong.
"Aggressive intervention has become the new societal norm," said Bill Voss, an expert at the Flight Safety Foundation in Alexandria, Va.
The day after the attack, authorities at airports worldwide tightened security, imposing extra searches on the ground and telling passengers flying to the U.S. from overseas they can't get out of their seat during the last hour of their flight. None seemed to mind, and many said they knew the story of United 93 and would respond aggressively if the new security measures failed.
"I know how to tackle," said Stephen Evans, 39, a former rugby player traveling from Chicago to Dulles International Airport near Washington. "Your odds are better to get the guy and risk an explosion on the plane rather than fly into Washington's Monument or what have you."
Jennifer Allen, 41, of Shelby Township, Mich., arrived in Detroit from Amsterdam on Saturday's Northwest 253.
"We're not so blase, not so willing to accept that we're safe and we can let someone do our security for us," she said. "We're not going to sit there and wait for somebody else to do it because if you wait, it might be too late."
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:49:56 AM
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
How do you lose the war on terror? Or, for that matter, how do you win it?
Quote from: Bluebook on December 28, 2009, 05:39:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:49:56 AM
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
How do you lose the war on terror? Or, for that matter, how do you win it?
Quit hating America, terror lover.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2009, 05:42:23 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on December 28, 2009, 05:39:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:49:56 AM
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
How do you lose the war on terror? Or, for that matter, how do you win it?
Quit hating America, terror lover.
Im just saying the goals need to be more clearly defined. To have a war on terror is about an pointless as a war on injustice. How do you win? Better then to have a war on militant islamic fundamentalism. Or a crusade.
This is one of those rare occassions where I agree with Marty.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 28, 2009, 05:47:09 AM
Im just saying the goals need to be more clearly defined. To have a war on terror is about an pointless as a war on injustice. How do you win? Better then to have a war on militant islamic fundamentalism. Or a crusade.
TEH WAR ON TEH TERROR is a war on militant islamic fundamentalism, and all their little friends, except for the states that sponsor them, because then that would be a real war, and we can't have that.
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2009, 03:32:15 AM
So what the response is? Making even more idiotic rules that in no way address the security risk that just happened, but the control freaks running this shit hope will get through because the mob is scared and thus can be persuaded with more crap.
It's only a matter of time before they're putting us in diapers and strapping us to the seats
Quote from: Bluebook on December 28, 2009, 05:39:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:49:56 AM
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
How do you lose the war on terror? Or, for that matter, how do you win it?
There is a specific campaign here, against militant Islamic fundamentalists. It can be won, just as other campaigns against terrorism have been won in the past. It will take patience, intelligence and fortitude. So far we have not done too well in these areas IMO.
I agree with you that the "war on terror" is a rather foolish expression. You should note that I didn't use that expression and only do so when I'm being sarcastic.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 28, 2009, 05:39:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:49:56 AM
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
How do you lose the war on terror? Or, for that matter, how do you win it?
When Osama comes out for a photo op with General Petraeus to sign unconditional surrender.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 07:36:27 AM
There is a specific campaign here, against militant Islamic fundamentalists. It can be won, just as other campaigns against terrorism have been won in the past. It will take patience, intelligence and fortitude. So far we have not done too well in these areas IMO.
I agree with you that the "war on terror" is a rather foolish expression. You should note that I didn't use that expression and only do so when I'm being sarcastic.
I agree, I've been saying for many years what an idiotic phrase that is. How can you win a war that you can't even name in a non-retarded fashion?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2009, 06:08:19 AM
Quote from: Bluebook on December 28, 2009, 05:47:09 AM
Im just saying the goals need to be more clearly defined. To have a war on terror is about an pointless as a war on injustice. How do you win? Better then to have a war on militant islamic fundamentalism. Or a crusade.
TEH WAR ON TEH TERROR is a war on militant islamic fundamentalism, and all their little friends, except for the states that sponsor them, because then that would be a real war, and we can't have that.
:D Excellent executive summary.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:49:56 AM
Agree with marti (and others); one tosser (on the terrorist watch lists) fails to do much but we hand anti-Western forces victory on a plate with retarded and disruptive security measures :mad:
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
Kind of seems that way. Rather than put stricter security in to prevent the mad men from getting on flights, the response is more severe measures to everyone else since the mad men will get on flights anyway, er, due to more lax security measures. But that said, we can't prevent every terrorist act; as the phrase goes, they only have to succeed once, while we have to have 100% success.
And yeah, the War on Terror phrase is a bit off. Terrorism is the method used, while it's actually a war on a certain subsets of Islamic radicalism who have been making war on the ROTW. The again, it doesn't help, IMO, with the new phrases "Man caused disaster" in place of Terrorism, or "Overseas Contingency Operations" to replace War in Iraq/Afghanistan, or other.
Travelling is going to keep getting worse and worse.
Here are the New Safety Rules currently in place on all inbound US flights, and more than likely in destinations as well.
1. A Single small piece of carry-on.
2. Intimate pat-downs, hand searches, checking clothing seams.
3. Passengers must stay seated during the last hour of the flight and must have nothing in their laps.
4. Flight paths will no longer be shown on aircraft monitors ( :()
5. Some airlines are adopting even stricter measures like giving passengers a crew escort when they go to the bathroom and keeping cabin lights turned up high.
All these options really make me want to fly to the States immediately.
Terrorism succeeds when it provokes people to over-react. Looks like the guy toasting his balls scored a big one. Sigh, when will people learn?
I think terrorism succeeds when they kill a bunch of people in some spectacular manner.
Why lower the bar for them?
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
I think terrorism succeeds when they kill a bunch of people in some spectacular manner.
Why lower the bar for them?
This is a superficial way to look at it. Killing is a means to terrorize. It's not like a reducing the western population by hundreds or even thousands is going to yield the terrorists a whole lot of benefits directly. Forcing us to over-react and waste tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, now that's a measurable impact. Making us constantly think of a threat of being killed by them, that's also a victory.
Quote from: DGuller on December 28, 2009, 11:43:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
I think terrorism succeeds when they kill a bunch of people in some spectacular manner.
Why lower the bar for them?
This is a superficial way to look at it. Killing is a means to terrorize. It's not like a reducing the western population by hundreds or even thousands is going to yield the terrorists a whole lot of benefits directly. Forcing us to over-react and waste tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, now that's a measurable impact. Making us constantly think of a threat of being killed by them, that's also a victory.
Yeah, but I dispute the idea that the measures taken to prevent someone blowing up a plane are so vastly outrageous comapred ot the damage done when they actually successfully pull off a spectacular attack.
For all the bitching about increased security, when I fly it isn't really any different than it ever has been, not as a result of increased security anyway. Almost all problems I have when flying have nothing to do with security at all - delayed flights, lost luggage, crowded airports, etc., etc.
I think people grossly exaggerate how horrific increased security measures really are. The reality is that you still go pay some price for a ticket, and that price is almost completely driven by economic realities having nothing to do with security, like fuel costs and such. You go to the airport, get on a plane, and it flies you where you want to go. Nothing has really changed in any fundamental way.
People are going to bitch about guys like this guy slipping throught the cracks, but you know what? There will be more. And it isn't because the TSA is terribly incompetent - or rather, it isn't that there is any real way to make it any more competent than it is, by and large. Millions of people fly every day, and there isn't going to be any system that will allow that to continue in any kind of reasonable manner that will not also involve the occasional butjob finding a hole.
If nothing else, simply testing the security measures over and over again will eventually see someone screw up and let something through. That is simple odds.
The reality is that it is, apparently, pretty damn hard to actually successfully take down an aircraft these days - at least, it hardly ever seems to happen, so apparently they are doing something right.
It's never been that easy to take down an aircraft, which is why these security measures are a band-aid solution that make flying a pain in the arse.
You can only have liquid in 100 ml bottles...but you can have ten of those if you want. Seriously. WTF?
Even before 9/11 planes weren't falling out of the sky everyday. I fly fairly frequently, and, trust me, it's becoming a pain in the ass, and each time some nutbar tries to do something, they ramp the security a notch until in a decade or so we're all gonna have to fly naked.
Quote from: DGuller on December 28, 2009, 11:32:58 AM
Terrorism succeeds when it provokes people to over-react. Looks like the guy toasting his balls scored a big one. Sigh, when will people learn?
Al-Qaida doesn't engage in terrorism in the classic way we know. It's not a propaganda of the deed type thing. It's closer to guerrilla war at a distance. Anyway, what way or people over-reacting?
Quote from: Josephus on December 28, 2009, 12:05:11 PM
It's never been that easy to take down an aircraft, which is why these security measures are a band-aid solution that make flying a pain in the arse.
You can only have liquid in 100 ml bottles...but you can have ten of those if you want. Seriously. WTF?
Even before 9/11 planes weren't falling out of the sky everyday. I fly fairly frequently, and, trust me, it's becoming a pain in the ass, and each time some nutbar tries to do something, they ramp the security a notch until in a decade or so we're all gonna have to fly naked.
So your big bitch is that you can't have liquids in bottles of more than 100ml?
That seems pretty trivial to me.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
I think terrorism succeeds when they kill a bunch of people in some spectacular manner.
Why lower the bar for them?
The aim of terrorism is not merely to kill someone, but to cause some sort of change in the political or religious policy of the target. They don't have to kill people to succeed, just scare people enough and they can get what they want anyways.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2009, 12:29:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
I think terrorism succeeds when they kill a bunch of people in some spectacular manner.
Why lower the bar for them?
The aim of terrorism is not merely to kill someone, but to cause some sort of change in the political or religious policy of the target. They don't have to kill people to succeed, just scare people enough and they can get what they want anyways.
I find it hard to believe that what AQ wants is people to not be allowed to take more than 100ml bottles on planes.
I think it has something more to do with spreading radical Islam, or something.
By the way, it's gonna be a total bitch for me to fly back, they already did all that new stuff to me when I left. I'll probably literally be strip searched next time, I'm gonna have to get there four hours early. :(
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 12:31:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2009, 12:29:04 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
I think terrorism succeeds when they kill a bunch of people in some spectacular manner.
Why lower the bar for them?
The aim of terrorism is not merely to kill someone, but to cause some sort of change in the political or religious policy of the target. They don't have to kill people to succeed, just scare people enough and they can get what they want anyways.
I find it hard to believe that what AQ wants is people to not be allowed to take more than 100ml bottles on planes.
I think it has something more to do with spreading radical Islam, or something.
Destroying the open society of the west is another aim, and we're well on our way to cooperating. Just look at what England's turned into.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2009, 12:07:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 28, 2009, 11:32:58 AM
Terrorism succeeds when it provokes people to over-react. Looks like the guy toasting his balls scored a big one. Sigh, when will people learn?
Al-Qaida doesn't engage in terrorism in the classic way we know. It's not a propaganda of the deed type thing. It's closer to guerrilla war at a distance. Anyway, what way or people over-reacting?
Guerilla war is pretty much the same thing as terrorism, functionally speaking. The strategic goal of the guerilla war is to not kill a lot of the enemy, but to complicate the life of the enemy, by sapping its resources and morale.
Quote from: DGuller on December 28, 2009, 12:36:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2009, 12:07:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 28, 2009, 11:32:58 AM
Terrorism succeeds when it provokes people to over-react. Looks like the guy toasting his balls scored a big one. Sigh, when will people learn?
Al-Qaida doesn't engage in terrorism in the classic way we know. It's not a propaganda of the deed type thing. It's closer to guerrilla war at a distance. Anyway, what way or people over-reacting?
Guerilla war is pretty much the same thing as terrorism, functionally speaking. The strategic goal of the guerilla war is to not kill a lot of the enemy, but to complicate the life of the enemy, by sapping its resources and morale.
No, you are confusing means with ends. Nobody engages in any kind of war with the strategic goal of making life complicated for the enemy.
As far the question of costs, appart from the intangible indignities of having all those security checks, there is also a basic cost of time. The more security checks there are, the more time you have to spend in the airport.
Take hundreds of millions of passengers, multiply it by a couple of hours, multiply it by their cost of time, and pretty soon you're talking real money. This is just talking about specific costs of airline security, and not the more general costs of conducting the "War on Terror".
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:49:56 AM
Agree with marti (and others); one tosser (on the terrorist watch lists) fails to do much but we hand anti-Western forces victory on a plate with retarded and disruptive security measures :mad:
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
So long as we won't address the core problem - allowing muslims to emigrate or travel to western countries - this will get worse. It really is amazing to see so much obfuscation around that issue. Islamic fundamentalism
is a product of Islam - it's not seperate from it; therefore we can't address that problem without also addressing the general problem of muslim culture.
And we will remain pusillanimous in our responses so long as we won't admit that in some cases it may be warranted to discriminate - especially when you deal with people who won't hesitate to use and abuse liberal values to cause us grief.
G.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
No, you are confusing means with ends. Nobody engages in any kind of war with the strategic goal of making life complicated for the enemy.
My bad, I meant warfare, not war.
Quote from: DGuller on December 28, 2009, 12:43:22 PM
As far the question of costs, appart from the intangible indignities of having all those security checks, there is also a basic cost of time. The more security checks there are, the more time you have to spend in the airport.
Take hundreds of millions of passengers, multiply it by a couple of hours, multiply it by their cost of time, and pretty soon you're talking real money. This is just talking about specific costs of airline security, and not the more general costs of conducting the "War on Terror".
Fair enough, but it sounds pretty vague to me.
No question that security is expensive, but I don't think the goals of AQ are really to make flying more expensive either - again, why lower the bar for their success so far?
And even with that cost, the price of an airline ticket has not appreciably risen as a result. It *has* risen some, but not enough to make air travel any less desirable for most people.
Quote from: DGuller on December 28, 2009, 12:44:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 12:40:28 PM
No, you are confusing means with ends. Nobody engages in any kind of war with the strategic goal of making life complicated for the enemy.
My bad, I meant warfare, not war.
Still a Guerrilla group like Hezbollah is not interested in trying to cause some sort of social change in Israel. They desire nothing less then the destruction or expulsion of the inhabitants of the area. Since they can't occupy Israel and commit genocide they must satisfy themselves with killing them through bombings and rocket attacks. Al-Qaida operates the same way which is why they are so interested in spectacular high casualties attacks. Compare this to the Marxist groups who operated in Europe during the Cold War. These groups showed less interest in killing people (and some would warn before hand to prevent killing) as demonstrating that their governments could not protect them. Perhaps guerrilla warfare is poor example. Maybe genocide at a distance would be better.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 11:52:19 AM
I think people grossly exaggerate how horrific increased security measures really are. The reality is that you still go pay some price for a ticket, and that price is almost completely driven by economic realities having nothing to do with security, like fuel costs and such. You go to the airport, get on a plane, and it flies you where you want to go. Nothing has really changed in any fundamental way.
It's not the price. It's the irritation that I think people object to, because I think it just comes across as ridiculous to so many people. For example the current desire to stop the maps in case they allow terrorists to target their explosives is just silly and that's what people think. It's like over-officious local government, irritating because of pettiness and silliness (similarly the no drinks rule).
I think CdM's article is right. The most important change in security is that passengers will now react in a way they wouldn't have done prior to 9/11. I also think individual vigilance after 9/11 is also a far more important change in terms of security than, say, not allowing people to have something on their lap ever will be.
Quote from: Josephus on December 28, 2009, 11:21:04 AM
Travelling is going to keep getting worse and worse.
Here are the New Safety Rules currently in place on all inbound US flights, and more than likely in destinations as well.
1. A Single small piece of carry-on.
2. Intimate pat-downs, hand searches, checking clothing seams.
3. Passengers must stay seated during the last hour of the flight and must have nothing in their laps.
4. Flight paths will no longer be shown on aircraft monitors ( :()
5. Some airlines are adopting even stricter measures like giving passengers a crew escort when they go to the bathroom and keeping cabin lights turned up high.
All these options really make me want to fly to the States immediately.
nice, punishing travellers because officials are incompetent. His own dad informed on him for crying out loud!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2009, 12:32:10 PM
By the way, it's gonna be a total bitch for me to fly back, they already did all that new stuff to me when I left. I'll probably literally be strip searched next time, I'm gonna have to get there four hours early. :(
According to Berkut, it's not a big deal at all.
Toronto int'l airport is experiencing 8 hour delays for people flying to the USA.
Quote from: Josephus on December 28, 2009, 01:46:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2009, 12:32:10 PM
By the way, it's gonna be a total bitch for me to fly back, they already did all that new stuff to me when I left. I'll probably literally be strip searched next time, I'm gonna have to get there four hours early. :(
According to Berkut, it's not a big deal at all.
Yeah, Tim, why do you hate the U.S. of A.? :(
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 12:57:21 PM
And even with that cost, the price of an airline ticket has not appreciably risen as a result. It *has* risen some, but not enough to make air travel any less desirable for most people.
I fly free sometimes. Yet it still has become less desirable. It's got nothing to do with costs.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 28, 2009, 01:29:15 PM
nice, punishing travellers because officials are incompetent. His own dad informed on him for crying out loud!
...and if some guy you know was denied the right to travel based on a unsubstantiated phone call from someone claiming to be his dad, you would be bitching about how all this ridiculous security is infringing on peoples rights.
Quote from: Josephus on December 28, 2009, 01:46:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2009, 12:32:10 PM
By the way, it's gonna be a total bitch for me to fly back, they already did all that new stuff to me when I left. I'll probably literally be strip searched next time, I'm gonna have to get there four hours early. :(
According to Berkut, it's not a big deal at all.
Toronto int'l airport is experiencing 8 hour delays for people flying to the USA.
According to my anecdotal evidence, it isn't any big deal at all.
I heard that the Heathrow airport security is randomly shooting people who try to fly to the US.
Quote from: Josephus on December 28, 2009, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 12:57:21 PM
And even with that cost, the price of an airline ticket has not appreciably risen as a result. It *has* risen some, but not enough to make air travel any less desirable for most people.
I fly free sometimes. Yet it still has become less desirable. It's got nothing to do with costs.
Uh-huh. I am sure not being able to have 110ml bottle of hair gel is just killing you.
Quote from: Bluebook on December 28, 2009, 05:39:34 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:49:56 AM
Sometimes I think we will lose this battle (despite our pathetic opponents); our responses are so unintelligent and pusillanimous :(
How do you lose the war on terror? Or, for that matter, how do you win it?
You win the war on terror when the entire population of the third world is exterminated.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 11:34:13 AM
I think terrorism succeeds when they kill a bunch of people in some spectacular manner.
Why lower the bar for them?
Because it's not about killing people; it's about fucking with their heads. The body count's a happy bonus in their eyes.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 28, 2009, 01:29:15 PM
nice, punishing travellers because officials are incompetent. His own dad informed on him for crying out loud!
According to what I've heard about the case, the Nigerian dude didn't trigger enough flags to be put on the no fly list.
I don't really understand the bizarre and utterly irrational response of limiting items brought aboard a plane in the wake of a bomb attack. We should just adopt the much more moderate response of putting a CCTV camera every 100 yards or so across the whole of the country like in Britain. This just a power grab by anti-hair gel fanatics. It's sad to see the terrorists win like this.
For the record, I am not claiming that increased security measures are "no big deal", I am saying from what I can tell the annoyance is grossly exaggerated in most cases. Certainly it does not come close to rising to "OMG TEH Terrorists ahve won if we cannot have more than 100ml of gel on the plane!".
No, the terrorists do not care about how annoyed airline passengers are - their goal is not to make people reduce their flying to the states by .05% due to emo-rage over idiotic security measures.
Quote from: Neil on December 28, 2009, 02:08:32 PM
You win the war on terror when the entire population of the third world is exterminated.
Just the muslims - we do need the cheap labor for the manufacturing of our endless stream of consumer junk remember? :contract:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on December 28, 2009, 02:16:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 28, 2009, 02:08:32 PM
You win the war on terror when the entire population of the third world is exterminated.
Just the muslims - we do need the cheap labor for the manufacturing of our endless stream of consumer junk remember? :contract:
The native poor are sufficient for that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2009, 12:32:10 PM
By the way, it's gonna be a total bitch for me to fly back, they already did all that new stuff to me when I left. I'll probably literally be strip searched next time, I'm gonna have to get there four hours early. :(
My advice: get in the line with the cute security guard and pretend it is a date.
My problem with the security responses is that they seem so stupid. A guy tries to blow up a plane with a substance in his shoe? Everyone has to take their shoes off. Never mind that there aren't checks for the other spots you can carry items, such as your pockets.
If they are really going to force you to stay in your seats during the last hour of flight because a guy tried to blow up a plane in the last hour, is that really going to deter an attack? Why wouldn't they blow up a plane two hours before landing?
But at the end of the day, taking off your shoes, sitting in your seat for an hour, and losing the map thing (which is a new innovation anyway) are minor annoyances that aren't going to keep the masses from flying.
Yep - plenty of the measures seem pretty silly. I just don't buy into the hysteria that silly measures == ZOMG TEH TERRORISTS ARE WINNING!!!!
Napolitano is on TV saying that the security response system worked perfectly. I thought the bomb just didn't go off when it was supposed to. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2009, 02:30:18 PM
My problem with the security responses is that they seem so stupid. A guy tries to blow up a plane with a substance in his shoe? Everyone has to take their shoes off. Never mind that there aren't checks for the other spots you can carry items, such as your pockets.
If they are really going to force you to stay in your seats during the last hour of flight because a guy tried to blow up a plane in the last hour, is that really going to deter an attack? Why wouldn't they blow up a plane two hours before landing?
But at the end of the day, taking off your shoes, sitting in your seat for an hour, and losing the map thing (which is a new innovation anyway) are minor annoyances that aren't going to keep the masses from flying.
At some point, isn't the display of the utter stupidity dangerous in itself? Discrediting yourself loses you the two main benefits of providing security: making people feel safe, and dissuading bad guys from trying to test you.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 28, 2009, 03:38:59 PM
Napolitano is on TV saying that the security response system worked perfectly. I thought the bomb just didn't go off when it was supposed to. :P
I believe she's backed off on that, saying that there were failures; I give her credit for that. And she tried to point out that what she originally said were taken out of context. Of that I'm not sure, as I heard her speak on one of the news shows, and it had me shaking my head a bit. What ever the case, this looks like a wake up call and security will have to re-evaluate their procedures, obviously.
Quote from: KRonn on December 28, 2009, 03:56:20 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 28, 2009, 03:38:59 PM
Napolitano is on TV saying that the security response system worked perfectly. I thought the bomb just didn't go off when it was supposed to. :P
I believe she's backed off on that, saying that there were failures; I give her credit for that. And she tried to point out that what she originally said were taken out of context. Of that I'm not sure, as I heard her speak on one of the news shows, and it had me shaking my head a bit. What ever the case, this looks like a wake up call and security will have to re-evaluate their procedures, obviously.
My take is that preflight security in a flight originating from another country really isn't our business (assuming the country isn't ridiculously lax).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2009, 02:09:27 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 28, 2009, 01:29:15 PM
nice, punishing travellers because officials are incompetent. His own dad informed on him for crying out loud!
According to what I've heard about the case, the Nigerian dude didn't trigger enough flags to be put on the no fly list.
He was on another list, a more general "could be dodgy" list. What I don't understand is why that didn't trigger a proper search which would have revealed the explosives he was carrying.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2009, 02:09:27 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 28, 2009, 01:29:15 PM
nice, punishing travellers because officials are incompetent. His own dad informed on him for crying out loud!
According to what I've heard about the case, the Nigerian dude didn't trigger enough flags to be put on the no fly list.
He was on another list, a more general "could be dodgy" list. What I don't understand is why that didn't trigger a proper search which would have revealed the explosives he was carrying.
Precisely. He should have been searched.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:40:35 PM
He was on another list, a more general "could be dodgy" list. What I don't understand is why that didn't trigger a proper search which would have revealed the explosives he was carrying.
Good question. Let's blame the Dutch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2009, 05:35:57 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 28, 2009, 04:40:35 PM
He was on another list, a more general "could be dodgy" list. What I don't understand is why that didn't trigger a proper search which would have revealed the explosives he was carrying.
Good question. Let's blame the Dutch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fp3.focus.de%2Fimg%2Fgen%2Fs%2Fq%2FHBsqmEbv_Pxgen_r_220xA.JPG&hash=bb332a1fc93d7b983214530067508cd8a5bf2700)
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 12:24:23 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 28, 2009, 12:05:11 PM
It's never been that easy to take down an aircraft, which is why these security measures are a band-aid solution that make flying a pain in the arse.
You can only have liquid in 100 ml bottles...but you can have ten of those if you want. Seriously. WTF?
Even before 9/11 planes weren't falling out of the sky everyday. I fly fairly frequently, and, trust me, it's becoming a pain in the ass, and each time some nutbar tries to do something, they ramp the security a notch until in a decade or so we're all gonna have to fly naked.
So your big bitch is that you can't have liquids in bottles of more than 100ml?
That seems pretty trivial to me.
No shit.
"What? I can't take my shampoo, conditioner and pomade with me? I have to buy it at my destination? At a Walgreen's, just like one at home? The Terrorists have won! Paul Mitchell has lost!"
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 02:14:49 PM
For the record, I am not claiming that increased security measures are "no big deal", I am saying from what I can tell the annoyance is grossly exaggerated in most cases. Certainly it does not come close to rising to "OMG TEH Terrorists ahve won if we cannot have more than 100ml of gel on the plane!".
No, the terrorists do not care about how annoyed airline passengers are - their goal is not to make people reduce their flying to the states by .05% due to emo-rage over idiotic security measures.
The problem is that these measures do little, if anything, to actually increase security. It's more pointless rules to cover the fact that this guy should have been stopped before he got on the plane, and that his explosives should have been detected then. Security was asleep, and this is pointless CYA shit that will have little effect. It's like instituting strip searches before you're allowed to approach the teller at the bank.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2009, 06:33:43 PM
No shit.
"What? I can't take my shampoo, conditioner and pomade with me? I have to buy it at my destination? At a Walgreen's, just like one at home? The Terrorists have won! Paul Mitchell has lost!"
You're going to get kicked out of the metrosexual union.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2009, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 12:24:23 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 28, 2009, 12:05:11 PM
It's never been that easy to take down an aircraft, which is why these security measures are a band-aid solution that make flying a pain in the arse.
You can only have liquid in 100 ml bottles...but you can have ten of those if you want. Seriously. WTF?
Even before 9/11 planes weren't falling out of the sky everyday. I fly fairly frequently, and, trust me, it's becoming a pain in the ass, and each time some nutbar tries to do something, they ramp the security a notch until in a decade or so we're all gonna have to fly naked.
So your big bitch is that you can't have liquids in bottles of more than 100ml?
That seems pretty trivial to me.
No shit.
"What? I can't take my shampoo, conditioner and pomade with me? I have to buy it at my destination? At a Walgreen's, just like one at home? The Terrorists have won! Paul Mitchell has lost!"
What the fuck? I need my face moisturized ON the plane ffs.
So, in summation: The guy--
1. paid cash;
2. for a one-way ticket;
3. on an international flight;
4. to Detroit, the main hub for the Disneyland of the American Islamic community, Dearborn MI:
5. after his father called the US Embassy in Lagos directly less than a month before about his son's recent militantism.
In short, the ball was dropped, primarily overseas. If these flags don't go red, then it doesn't matter how many people don't get to bring their bottles of Head & Shoulders with them.
you forgot he was a Muslim, a student, in early 20s, single and was on a database for having AQ links. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2009, 06:52:58 PM
you forgot he was a Muslim, a student, in early 20s, single and was on a database for having AQ links. :P
Well, yeah. The TIDE list and his demographics is assumed.
The thing that really bothers me is that we have international flights into the US coming in to Detroit. I mean, WTF kind of message is that gonna send to foreigners anyway? They're gonna get here and think OMG America SUXXX!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 28, 2009, 07:20:53 PM
The thing that really bothers me is that we have international flights into the US coming in to Detroit. I mean, WTF kind of message is that gonna send to foreigners anyway? They're gonna get here and think OMG America SUXXX!
I think all flights should land at Detroit. That way, third-world scum will feel at home.
All foreigners should be held in camps until they are checked/gassed/violated.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2009, 06:54:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 28, 2009, 06:52:58 PM
you forgot he was a Muslim, a student, in early 20s, single and was on a database for having AQ links. :P
Well, yeah. The TIDE list and his demographics is assumed.
You're just mean spirited!! :cool:
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 02:01:43 PM
Quote from: Josephus on December 28, 2009, 01:48:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 12:57:21 PM
And even with that cost, the price of an airline ticket has not appreciably risen as a result. It *has* risen some, but not enough to make air travel any less desirable for most people.
I fly free sometimes. Yet it still has become less desirable. It's got nothing to do with costs.
Uh-huh. I am sure not being able to have 110ml bottle of hair gel is just killing you.
Look...I've got very thick hair, OK, and it gets very dry on transatlantic flights.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2009, 02:33:37 PM
Yep - plenty of the measures seem pretty silly. I just don't buy into the hysteria that silly measures == ZOMG TEH TERRORISTS ARE WINNING!!!!
It's not that the terrorists are winning it's just that at some point the theatre of security ceases to be worth it. I think turning off the map (seriously I love that thing) is that point.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 28, 2009, 07:20:53 PM
The thing that really bothers me is that we have international flights into the US coming in to Detroit. I mean, WTF kind of message is that gonna send to foreigners anyway? They're gonna get here and think OMG America SUXXX!
But... we already think that so what's the problem? :huh:
Twice as much explosive as the shoebomber.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34616570/ns/us_news-washington_post/
Let's just hope that the next lunatic will not try to smuggle the explosives by attaching it to his balls.
I'm trying to elucidate precisely how dangerous 80g of PETN is.
Take a look at this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_effectiveness_factor
It's RE factor is 3x that of ordinary gunpowder...........so equivalent to 240g of that.....doesn't sound very scary...
OTOH the detonation velocity is 21x that of gunpowder, which, I think, would make it far more dangerous than it's gunpowder equivalent especially if the explosive was in a hard casing (shrapnel) :huh:
But could it take down a plane? Or even breach the hull, given that the explosive was enclosed only by soft human flesh.
Well, I have no idea :huh:
It seems unlikely to me it would have sent the plane crashing to the ground, though it may have killed a number of people aside from the bomber. A commercial airliner like that one should be able to fly with a serious hull breach.
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243)
OTOH, there was the Lockerbie bombing... so I guess I'm not sure really.
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2009, 06:16:08 AM
OTOH, there was the Lockerbie bombing... so I guess I'm not sure really.
Lockerbie's bomb was much bigger, in the forward cargohold, and shredded the cockpit above it right off the fuselage.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2009, 08:30:05 AM
Lockerbie's bomb was much bigger, in the forward cargohold, and shredded the cockpit above it right off the fuselage.
I confess I don't recall most of the details about that bomb re: size, composition, and placement on the aircraft. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2009, 08:32:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2009, 08:30:05 AM
Lockerbie's bomb was much bigger, in the forward cargohold, and shredded the cockpit above it right off the fuselage.
I confess I don't recall most of the details about that bomb re: size, composition, and placement on the aircraft. :blush:
You could always ask the bomber. The Scottish government saw to that.
Three months to live. Four months ago. Whatever.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2009, 08:34:18 AM
You could always ask the bomber. The Scottish government saw to that.
Three months to live. Four months ago. Whatever.
I learned in a Hollywood movie once that the Scots are obsessed with freedom. :(
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2009, 08:37:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 29, 2009, 08:34:18 AM
You could always ask the bomber. The Scottish government saw to that.
Three months to live. Four months ago. Whatever.
I learned in a Hollywood movie once that the Scots are obsessed with freedom. :(
Unless it's the IRA. No "Stop Snitchin'" up there, little rat bastards.
Wouldn't the guy also have to dry hump the side of the plane to make a hole in it? I would think that being even a foot or two away from it would make the explosion much less effective.
Yep, well, I'm assuming he's an idiot. :)
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2009, 08:43:38 AM
Wouldn't the guy also have to dry hump the side of the plane to make a hole in it?
Doesn't work.
Since this guy is working for a worldwide terrorist organization, AQ or like minded groups, who train people to make war on us, maybe he and others who commit similar acts should first go to Gitmo for interrogation. Instead of immediately getting lawyered up, read his rights (as a foreign national), etc. Just a thought. Some of this seems quite a gray area between law enforcement and military action.
Quote from: KRonn on December 29, 2009, 10:43:48 AM
Since this guy is working for a worldwide terrorist organization, AQ or like minded groups, who train people to make war on us, maybe he and others who commit similar acts should first go to Gitmo for interrogation. Instead of immediately getting lawyered up, read his rights (as a foreign national), etc. Just a thought. Some of this seems quite a gray area between law enforcement and military action.
Let me guess: you also want to charge him for water and board?
Quote from: The Brain on December 29, 2009, 11:20:36 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 29, 2009, 10:43:48 AM
Since this guy is working for a worldwide terrorist organization, AQ or like minded groups, who train people to make war on us, maybe he and others who commit similar acts should first go to Gitmo for interrogation. Instead of immediately getting lawyered up, read his rights (as a foreign national), etc. Just a thought. Some of this seems quite a gray area between law enforcement and military action.
Let me guess: you also want to charge him for water and board?
Hmmm... water... board... that could be an idea!
But few people are water boarded. The idea is to do longer term interrogations to get info, find what he knows. But once he gets into the civilian system things change entirely.
Quote from: The Brain on December 29, 2009, 11:20:36 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 29, 2009, 10:43:48 AM
Since this guy is working for a worldwide terrorist organization, AQ or like minded groups, who train people to make war on us, maybe he and others who commit similar acts should first go to Gitmo for interrogation. Instead of immediately getting lawyered up, read his rights (as a foreign national), etc. Just a thought. Some of this seems quite a gray area between law enforcement and military action.
Let me guess: you also want to charge him for water and board?
Lol, your a genius. :lmfao:
Do you guys remember that Islamic forum we invaded a couple of years ago? Gahawer?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/abdulmutallabs-web-posts-_n_406083.html
QuoteThose posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.
Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.
The postings seem hastily written and are replete with spelling and grammar errors. In one, on Jan 28. 2005, he wrote: "i am in a situation where i do not have a friend, i have no one to speak too, no one to consult, no one to support me and i feel depressed and lonely. i do not know what to do."
The posts were made to an Islamic bulletin board called Gawaher, which literally translates from Arabic as "gems" or "jewels," but can also be read as "essence" or "spirit."
:lol:
Quote from: Fireblade on December 29, 2009, 12:07:17 PM
Do you guys remember that Islamic forum we invaded a couple of years ago? Gahawer?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/abdulmutallabs-web-posts-_n_406083.html
QuoteThose posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.
Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.
The postings seem hastily written and are replete with spelling and grammar errors. In one, on Jan 28. 2005, he wrote: "i am in a situation where i do not have a friend, i have no one to speak too, no one to consult, no one to support me and i feel depressed and lonely. i do not know what to do."
The posts were made to an Islamic bulletin board called Gawaher, which literally translates from Arabic as "gems" or "jewels," but can also be read as "essence" or "spirit."
:lol:
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on December 29, 2009, 12:08:17 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on December 29, 2009, 12:07:17 PM
Do you guys remember that Islamic forum we invaded a couple of years ago? Gahawer?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/abdulmutallabs-web-posts-_n_406083.html
QuoteThose posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.
Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.
The postings seem hastily written and are replete with spelling and grammar errors. In one, on Jan 28. 2005, he wrote: "i am in a situation where i do not have a friend, i have no one to speak too, no one to consult, no one to support me and i feel depressed and lonely. i do not know what to do."
The posts were made to an Islamic bulletin board called Gawaher, which literally translates from Arabic as "gems" or "jewels," but can also be read as "essence" or "spirit."
:lol:
:lol:
http://www.gawaher.com/index.php?showforum=467.html&
:homestar: ?
Oh man. Next thing you know that gay Arab kid is gonna be trying to blow up a Mosque.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2009, 12:02:34 PM
Lol, your a genius. :lmfao:
You're a complete fucking moron.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Fireblade on December 29, 2009, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 29, 2009, 12:08:17 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on December 29, 2009, 12:07:17 PM
Do you guys remember that Islamic forum we invaded a couple of years ago? Gahawer?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/abdulmutallabs-web-posts-_n_406083.html
QuoteThose posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.
Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.
The postings seem hastily written and are replete with spelling and grammar errors. In one, on Jan 28. 2005, he wrote: "i am in a situation where i do not have a friend, i have no one to speak too, no one to consult, no one to support me and i feel depressed and lonely. i do not know what to do."
The posts were made to an Islamic bulletin board called Gawaher, which literally translates from Arabic as "gems" or "jewels," but can also be read as "essence" or "spirit."
:lol:
:lol:
http://www.gawaher.com/index.php?showforum=467.html&
:homestar: ?
If you were just a little more diligent in undermining that forum, maybe we wouldn't be losing our map tracker. Sheilbh, you can blame Jaron, Fireblade and whoever else lost interest in the "invasion.'
CNN had some folks on from the Transportation Safety Administration mentioning the glaringly obvious, that the US doesn't handle passenger screening at foreign airports.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2009, 03:12:12 PM
CNN had some folks on from the Transportation Safety Administration mentioning the glaringly obvious, that the US doesn't handle passenger screening at foreign airports.
That is the problem with foreigners.
Quote from: Fireblade on December 29, 2009, 12:07:17 PM
Do you guys remember that Islamic forum we invaded a couple of years ago? Gahawer?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/abdulmutallabs-web-posts-_n_406083.html
QuoteThose posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.
Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.
The postings seem hastily written and are replete with spelling and grammar errors. In one, on Jan 28. 2005, he wrote: "i am in a situation where i do not have a friend, i have no one to speak too, no one to consult, no one to support me and i feel depressed and lonely. i do not know what to do."
The posts were made to an Islamic bulletin board called Gawaher, which literally translates from Arabic as "gems" or "jewels," but can also be read as "essence" or "spirit."
:lol:
Oh man, if that's not the coolest thing ever.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2009, 03:12:12 PM
CNN had some folks on from the Transportation Safety Administration mentioning the glaringly obvious, that the US doesn't handle passenger screening at foreign airports.
Of course. Though do Nigerians need to apply for visas in advance to visit the US or are they a visa waiver nation?
Quote from: alfred russel on December 29, 2009, 02:31:11 PM
If you were just a little more diligent in undermining that forum, maybe we wouldn't be losing our map tracker. Sheilbh, you can blame Jaron, Fireblade and whoever else lost interest in the "invasion.'
I got banned!
I look forward to the day when Languish is mentioned in an international incident/terrorist plot.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2009, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 29, 2009, 03:12:12 PM
CNN had some folks on from the Transportation Safety Administration mentioning the glaringly obvious, that the US doesn't handle passenger screening at foreign airports.
Of course. Though do Nigerians need to apply for visas in advance to visit the US or are they a visa waiver nation?
He had a valid US visa, his visa to visit Britain was revoked in May.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8432180.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/28/cbsnews_investigates/main6031469.shtml
Quote from: Fireblade on December 29, 2009, 05:05:02 PM
I look forward to the day when Languish is mentioned in an international incident/terrorist plot.
So who is your bet on which poster will be connected when it happens? :ph34r:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 29, 2009, 06:35:54 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on December 29, 2009, 05:05:02 PM
I look forward to the day when Languish is mentioned in an international incident/terrorist plot.
So who is your bet on which poster will be connected when it happens? :ph34r:
Judging by Homeland security's track record they will bust Tim :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 29, 2009, 06:35:54 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on December 29, 2009, 05:05:02 PM
I look forward to the day when Languish is mentioned in an international incident/terrorist plot.
So who is your bet on which poster will be connected when it happens? :ph34r:
Technically Marty has already committed crimes that could be an international incident though only a minor one. In Poland it's illegal to denigrate a foreign head of state. He could be turned in at any time
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 29, 2009, 05:12:47 AM
I'm trying to elucidate precisely how dangerous 80g of PETN is.
Take a look at this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_effectiveness_factor
It's RE factor is 3x that of ordinary gunpowder...........so equivalent to 240g of that.....doesn't sound very scary...
OTOH the detonation velocity is 21x that of gunpowder, which, I think, would make it far more dangerous than it's gunpowder equivalent especially if the explosive was in a hard casing (shrapnel) :huh:
But could it take down a plane? Or even breach the hull, given that the explosive was enclosed only by soft human flesh.
Well, I have no idea :huh:
PETN is only going to reach those figures if you have a method of compressing it. Simply detonating it at atmospheric pressure like Mr. Magic Underpants isn't sufficient to cause catastrophic damage to the plane.
He's really like a Viz character :
Mohammed Dynapants and his amazing AQ kegs!
I've not been following this very closely (it's Christmas!) but were the explosives just in his underpants? I mean if so I don't see how more pat-down searches will discover that as opposed to the far more intrusive cupping search :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 29, 2009, 07:40:52 PM
I've not been following this very closely (it's Christmas!) but were the explosives just in his underpants? I mean if so I don't see how more pat-down searches will discover that as opposed to the far more intrusive cupping search :mellow:
That's my understanding. They would only have been discovered using much more invasive searches.
Quote from: PDH on December 29, 2009, 01:00:03 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2009, 12:02:34 PM
Lol, your a genius. :lmfao:
You're a complete fucking moron.
Oh noes! I'm to lazy to type properly on a message board, oh the humanity!!111
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2009, 07:54:49 PM
Oh noes! I'm to lazy to type properly on a message board, oh the humanity!!111
Too not to. Also, you fucked up the quoting first go-around.
Quote from: ulmont on December 29, 2009, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2009, 07:54:49 PM
Oh noes! I'm to lazy to type properly on a message board, oh the humanity!!111
Too not to. Also, you fucked up the quoting first go-around.
Didn't I just say I'm to lazy to type right? What don't you understand about that?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2009, 07:58:48 PM
Didn't I just say I'm too lazy to type right? What don't you understand about that?
Whee, this is fun.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 29, 2009, 07:58:48 PM
Didn't I just say I'm to lazy to type right? What don't you understand about that?
Type correctly.
If true, this will be a problem for Obama.
http://www.usatoday.com/NEWS/usaedition/2009-12-29-column29_ST_U.htm?csp=34
QuoteWhat we don't know may kill us
Updated 1d 14h ago | Comments 5 | Recommend 2
By Marc A. Thiessen
The plot to blow up Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Day was, according to multiple news accounts, organized and launched by al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen. ABC News has reported that the Nigerian man who attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, spent a month at an al-Qaeda compound north of Yemen's capital, Sanaa, where he completed training alongside a Saudi al-Qaeda bomb-maker.
Little noted is the fact that the second in command of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula— the group that reportedly trained and deployed Abdulmutallab for his mission to attack the American homeland — is a released Guantanamo detainee: Said Ali al-Shihri.While al-Shihri's specific role has not been determined, it is increasingly clear that the terrorist network he helps lead was behind the attempted Detroit attack.
Known to Guantanamo officials as Detainee No. 372, al-Shihri was captured on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in December 2001. He denied being a terrorist and claimed to have traveled to Afghanistan two weeks after the 9/11 attacks to deliver money for the Red Crescent.At Guantanamo, he told officials that he had never even heard of al-Qaeda until he arrived in Guantanamo, and declared that "Usama bin Laden had no business representing Islam." He promised that if released he would return to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, reunite with his family and work in their used furniture store.
Despite evidence that he had trained in an al-Qaeda camp north of Kabul, he was released in 2007 to a Saudi rehabilitation program. But al-Shihri never became a furniture salesman. Instead, last January, he appeared in a series of jihadist videos identified as al-Qaeda's second in command on the Arabian Peninsula. The New York Times reported that he is "suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sanaa," in September 2008.
A cautionary tale
The connection between this former Guantanamo detainee and the most recent al-Qaeda plot to attack the homeland is a cautionary tale — one that should give Americans pause about President Obama's plans to release more detainees and shut down the detention center at Guantanamo. Just days before the attempted attack in Detroit, the Obama administration transferred six more Guantanamo detainees to Yemen. According to the summary of evidence prepared by Guantanamo officials, one of those released, Farouq Ali Ahmed, was a member of al-Qaeda who was "observed carrying an AK-47 and wearing fatigues at UBL's private airport in Kandahar"and was captured with an organized group of mujahedin fighters after the fall of Tora Bora. Another, Ayman Saeed Abdullah Batarfi, admitted to Guantanamo officials that "he met with Usama Bin Laden on a number of occasions." Perhaps these men will now lead peaceful lives. Or they might, like al-Shihri, return to jihad. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, at least 74 terrorists released from Guantanamo are believed to have returned to the fight. Those still at the facility, according to the Brookings Institution, include: 26 members of al-Qaeda's leadership cadre, 90 lower-level al-Qaeda operatives, eight members of the Taliban leadership, 81 foreign fighters and 11 Taliban fighters and operatives. Releasing such terrorists, or bringing them to America, is dangerous and misguided.
Instead of looking for ways to release these dangerous men, we should be capturing and interrogating more of them for information on planned attacks. But that is something the U.S. no longer does. President Obama has shut down the CIA interrogation program that helped stop a series of planned attacks — and in the year since he took office, not one high-value terrorist has been interrogated by the CIA.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has escalated the targeted killing of high-value terrorists. There may be times when killing a terrorist leader is the best option (for example, his location might be too remote to reach with anything but an unmanned drone). But President Obama has decided capturing senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogating them — with enhanced techniques if necessary — is not worth the trouble.
Intelligence we'll never see
The problem with this approach is that dead terrorists cannot tell their plans. According to ABC News, Abdulmutallab has told investigators there are "more just like him in Yemen who would strike soon." Who are these terrorists? Where have they been deployed? We may not find out until it is too late because we launched a strike intended to kill the al-Qaeda leaders who could give us vital intelligence.
On Christmas Eve, U.S. and Yemeni forces struck a compound where senior al-Qaeda leaders were meeting. Among those believed killed, The Washington Postreported, were "Nasser al-Wuhayshi, al-Qaeda's regional leader, and his deputy, Said Ali al-Shihri." A U.S. official told the Post that they were "the two biggest fish in the most violent offshoot of al-Qaeda that exists in the world." Subsequent reports have indicated al-Wuhayshi might have survived. The fates of the two men remain unclear.
In an earlier time, when we tracked down such big fish, we would take them in alive, hand them over to the CIA and find out their plans to kill Americans. No longer. If we had tried to capture, instead of kill, these two terrorist leaders, they could have told us whether more like Abdulmutallab were on the way. Now, they might have taken these secrets to the grave. And we are left to hope that the passengers on the next flight are as brave as those who subdued Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day.
Marc A. Thiessen's new book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack, will be published in January by Regnery.
He was released in 2007. How is that Obama's fault?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 29, 2009, 10:13:26 PM
He was released in 2007. How is that Obama's fault?
Remember, Tim's too lazy to post coherently on message boards.
I see Tim's point, sort of. We should never release anyone arrested, even if they aren't convicted, because they might commit a crime again in the future.
I bet if 12/30 happens tomorrow and lots of people will end up getting killed, 40% of US will go "I hope this will be bad for Obama".
Probably.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2009, 12:45:22 AM
I bet if 12/30 happens tomorrow and lots of people will end up getting killed, 40% of US will go "I hope this will be bad for Obama".
I bet if Obama came into their living room and shit on their floor, 75% of Languish would thank him and invite him to stay for dinner.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 29, 2009, 10:50:40 PM
I see Tim's point, sort of. We should never release anyone arrested, even if they aren't convicted, because they might commit a crime again in the future.
I didn't say it was right, just that it would cause political problems. Obama wants to close Gitmo (and I agree), this is what all his opponents will point to when hammering him on it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 29, 2009, 10:13:26 PM
He was released in 2007. How is that Obama's fault?
Instead of looking for ways to release these dangerous men, we should be capturing and interrogating more of them for information on planned attacks. But that is something the U.S. no longer does. President Obama has shut down the CIA interrogation program that helped stop a series of planned attacks — and in the year since he took office, not one high-value terrorist has been interrogated by the CIA.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has escalated the targeted killing of high-value terrorists. There may be times when killing a terrorist leader is the best option (for example, his location might be too remote to reach with anything but an unmanned drone). But President Obama has decided capturing senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogating them — with enhanced techniques if necessary — is not worth the trouble.
Intelligence we'll never see
The problem with this approach is that dead terrorists cannot tell their plans. According to ABC News, Abdulmutallab has told investigators there are "more just like him in Yemen who would strike soon." Who are these terrorists? Where have they been deployed? We may not find out until it is too late because we launched a strike intended to kill the al-Qaeda leaders who could give us vital intelligence. I guess actions like these could be cause of some future concern for the Obama admin. Certainly his political opponents will be all over it, but opponents or not, this still looks like a big change in operations by the US government.
Funny, I remarked a long time ago that the hysteria of the left over detaining prisoners in the WoT (no matter how humanely - remember that there still has not been any credible evidence that anyone was being tortured at Gitmo, for example) would result in the US just not taking prisoners anymore, and instead just look to kill them. This was dismissed as silly and ridiculous.
Now the Golden Child is instituting that *exact* policy, and we don't hear the usual suspects complaining about it at all. Curious.
What are the other options than killing terrorists in Yemen?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2009, 10:48:34 AM
What are the other options than killing terrorists in Yemen?
I guess sending special ops teams in to capture and interrogate, when/if possible. It seems the Yemeni govt is somewhat willing to allow some of that. I'd think capture/interrogate is the most important since it involves intel/information gathering.
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2009, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2009, 10:48:34 AM
What are the other options than killing terrorists in Yemen?
I guess sending special ops teams in to capture and interrogate, when/if possible. It seems the Yemeni govt is somewhat willing to allow some of that. I'd think capture/interrogate is the most important since it involves intel/information gathering.
Don't be a sucker Kronn - Shelf's question was a false dilemma fallacy.
The issue brought up is not limited to Yemen to begin with.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 11:08:59 AM
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2009, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2009, 10:48:34 AM
What are the other options than killing terrorists in Yemen?
I guess sending special ops teams in to capture and interrogate, when/if possible. It seems the Yemeni govt is somewhat willing to allow some of that. I'd think capture/interrogate is the most important since it involves intel/information gathering.
Don't be a sucker Kronn - Shelf's question was a false dilemma fallacy.
The issue brought up is not limited to Yemen to begin with.
True enough that the issue is worldwide, not Yemen just because it's in the news now. And more so as far as I'm concerned, the issue is the Obama admin's policy, or changes, on dealing with these radicals and groups.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
Funny, I remarked a long time ago that the hysteria of the left over detaining prisoners in the WoT (no matter how humanely - remember that there still has not been any credible evidence that anyone was being tortured at Gitmo, for example) would result in the US just not taking prisoners anymore, and instead just look to kill them. This was dismissed as silly and ridiculous.
Now the Golden Child is instituting that *exact* policy, and we don't hear the usual suspects complaining about it at all. Curious.
Now the people who once chided people for "rooting against America" are doing exactly that. Curious.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2009, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
Funny, I remarked a long time ago that the hysteria of the left over detaining prisoners in the WoT (no matter how humanely - remember that there still has not been any credible evidence that anyone was being tortured at Gitmo, for example) would result in the US just not taking prisoners anymore, and instead just look to kill them. This was dismissed as silly and ridiculous.
Now the Golden Child is instituting that *exact* policy, and we don't hear the usual suspects complaining about it at all. Curious.
Now the people who once chided people for "rooting against America" are doing exactly that. Curious.
A Fatetastic response Raz, you should be proud.
The quality of the response can not surpass the quality of the quote. One stupid claim deserves another.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
Now the Golden Child is instituting that *exact* policy, and we don't hear the usual suspects complaining about it at all. Curious.
I was being sarcastic?
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 11:08:59 AM
Don't be a sucker Kronn - Shelf's question was a false dilemma fallacy.
The issue brought up is not limited to Yemen to begin with.
No it's not. I genuinely don't know. The US doesn't have forces in Yemen - though it has allegedly supported the Yemenese government in recent years. I don't know if the US has sufficient forces in the region to capture and interrogate these guys in Yemen and if they did I would imagine that it would be a very high risk operation - it would, after all, be sending special ops guys into a terrorist base. I'm not convinced that the reason we won't see that intelligence is just because the CIA won't do the interrogating.
I'm just not convinced by an article from a guy who I imagine is trying to sell his book 'Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack'.
There are serious issues with Yemen - I'm not sure if, right now, what the options are and I'd be interested to find out, hence my question.
I've never got involved in the whole detainee debate because it's too legalistic for me, I don't think I've got a grasp on it. Generally in the arguments I've read I find grumbler more convincing.
My points have always been that the US shouldn't institutionalise torture by legalising it under any circumstances, because the nature of government agencies is that precisely what constitutes an emergency is an ever-widening circle. I'd add that I think if the ticking timebomb is there then surely that's worth risking your job over and that I think any court or court martial would be sympathetic (similarly I think responsibility should go as high as possible and it should be worth losing your ministerial car over before it's ordered).
The other thing I've always said is that Guantanamo is a monumental own goal and it should be shut down for that reason.
I heard Congressman Hamilton on the news on my way in today talking about this. Apparently, the dude's father had called authorities a while back and warned them that his son had been radicalized and he thought he was a danger. Not only that, but the kid (1)boarded a flight going halfway around the world and originating on the Arabian Peninsula with (2)no luggage, (3)paid cash for a (4)one-way ticket.
Okay, even if the authorities in Yemen or Amsterdam didn't know about the father's warning, all those other things ought to have been enough to at least warrant the use of a bomb scanner or a bomb sniffing dog. Maybe Yemen doesn't have that shit, but you know Amsterdam does--it's a major international flight hub. And he got on an American airline there too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2009, 11:30:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 11:08:59 AM
Don't be a sucker Kronn - Shelf's question was a false dilemma fallacy.
The issue brought up is not limited to Yemen to begin with.
No it's not. I genuinely don't know. The US doesn't have forces in Yemen - though it has allegedly supported the Yemenese government in recent years. I don't know if the US has sufficient forces in the region to capture and interrogate these guys in Yemen and if they did I would imagine that it would be a very high risk operation - it would, after all, be sending special ops guys into a terrorist base. I'm not convinced that the reason we won't see that intelligence is just because the CIA won't do the interrogating.
I'm just not convinced by an article from a guy who I imagine is trying to sell his book 'Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack'.
There are serious issues with Yemen - I'm not sure if, right now, what the options are and I'd be interested to find out, hence my question.
I've never got involved in the whole detainee debate because it's too legalistic for me, I don't think I've got a grasp on it. Generally in the arguments I've read I find grumbler more convincing.
My points have always been that the US shouldn't institutionalise torture by legalising it under any circumstances, because the nature of government agencies is that precisely what constitutes an emergency is an ever-widening circle. I'd add that I think if the ticking timebomb is there then surely that's worth risking your job over and that I think any court or court martial would be sympathetic (similarly I think responsibility should go as high as possible and it should be worth losing your ministerial car over before it's ordered).
The other thing I've always said is that Guantanamo is a monumental own goal and it should be shut down for that reason.
I'm somewhat asking too, about the Obama admin's policy on terrorist leaders. I'm not entirely sure. But it does seem that the push is more towards law enforcement than military handling, and I'm not convinced that's the best way, given this is more of a war than just law enforcement.
As for Gitmo, was it really that bad or did those opposing it create so much a fuss over it that it became such an over blown story? It seems the correct venue for those captured on battlefields and such, as they shouldn't always be sent to civilian venues.
Quote from: KRonn on December 30, 2009, 12:22:23 PM
I'm somewhat asking too, about the Obama admin's policy on terrorist leaders. I'm not entirely sure. But it does seem that the push is more towards law enforcement than military handling, and I'm not convinced that's the best way, given this is more of a war than just law enforcement.
Well surely it depends. I think it's a false dichotomy that it's war or law enforcement.
QuoteAs for Gitmo, was it really that bad or did those opposing it create so much a fuss over it that it became such an over blown story?
Yes, it was that bad. And I think that its badness needs to be understood outside the context of the American political debate between those who support it and those who oppose it creating a fuss and causing it to become an overblown story. I think globally it and Abu Ghraib did more than anything else to trash America's image. Not least because we live in an age of images and for me the orange boilersuits and the naked man and barking dog are ones that I think have wide dissemination and impact.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2009, 01:31:31 PM
Not least because we live in an age of images and for me the orange boilersuits and the naked man and barking dog are ones that I think have wide dissemination and impact.
No, we live in an age of images where that sort of thing upsets European sensibilities, who've no stomach to do what it takes to get things done; namely, making moonworshippers talk with panties on their heads.
That argument would have more resonance if the USA had actually got anything done.
Indeed, the father had warned the US embassy about his concerns about the son... I wonder where the comms breakdown happened.
The breakdown occurred at the DNI. The Lagos embassy did its job in relaying the information.
Quote from: Fate on December 30, 2009, 04:38:23 PM
The breakdown occurred at the DNI. The Lagos embassy did its job in relaying the information.
DNI doesn't handle data. Just because Lagos transmitted the data doesn't mean State/INR did anything about it in Washington DC. I've heard this song before. :yuk:
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 30, 2009, 04:35:14 PM
Indeed, the father had warned the US embassy about his concerns about the son... I wonder where the comms breakdown happened.
Probably some where between the CIA station chief's office and the telephone.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 04:32:45 PM
That argument would have more resonance if the USA had actually got anything done.
We made the finest flesh pyramid known to man since 1550.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 30, 2009, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 04:32:45 PM
That argument would have more resonance if the USA had actually got anything done.
We made the finest flesh pyramid known to man since 1550.
You know, if it was women instead of little hairy men this might be a worthwhile goal.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2009, 04:40:15 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on December 30, 2009, 04:35:14 PM
Indeed, the father had warned the US embassy about his concerns about the son... I wonder where the comms breakdown happened.
I doubt this was send over CIA channels. It probably went via State cable, and then who knows what happened.
Probably some where between the CIA station chief's office and the telephone.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2009, 04:45:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 30, 2009, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 04:32:45 PM
That argument would have more resonance if the USA had actually got anything done.
We made the finest flesh pyramid known to man since 1550.
You know, if it was women instead of little hairy men this might be a worthwhile goal.
If I was younger, I'd make a go of it.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 04:32:45 PM
That argument would have more resonance if the USA had actually got anything done.
What do we need to do to qualify for actually getting anything done? We've zapped umpteen AQ mucky mucks in Pakistan, umpteen mad mullahs in Yemen, umpteen fedayeen freedom fighters in Iraq.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2009, 04:15:43 PM
No, we live in an age of images where that sort of thing upsets European sensibilities, who've no stomach to do what it takes to get things done; namely, making moonworshippers talk with panties on their heads.
Don't forget the menstrual blood-- that stuff's like topical truth serum, apparently :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 04:32:45 PM
That argument would have more resonance if the USA had actually got anything done.
What do we need to do to qualify for actually getting anything done? We've zapped umpteen AQ mucky mucks in Pakistan, umpteen mad mullahs in Yemen, umpteen fedayeen freedom fighters in Iraq.
Go back in time & prevent every terrorist attack from ever occurring.
Nonsense Yi, they were all wedding parties :lol:
I didn't say it was easy, and FWIW I believe the British contribution has been even more lamentable............but where are the tangible beneficial results for our efforts?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 30, 2009, 04:32:45 PM
That argument would have more resonance if the USA had actually got anything done.
What do we need to do to qualify for actually getting anything done? We've zapped umpteen AQ mucky mucks in Pakistan, umpteen mad mullahs in Yemen, umpteen fedayeen freedom fighters in Iraq.
Good question. What does this zapping actually accomplish? In 2001 Bush complained about how he was tired of the US "swatting at flies". It's almost 2010 and we are still swatting at flies.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 11:22:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2009, 11:21:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2009, 10:08:32 AM
Funny, I remarked a long time ago that the hysteria of the left over detaining prisoners in the WoT (no matter how humanely - remember that there still has not been any credible evidence that anyone was being tortured at Gitmo, for example) would result in the US just not taking prisoners anymore, and instead just look to kill them. This was dismissed as silly and ridiculous.
Now the Golden Child is instituting that *exact* policy, and we don't hear the usual suspects complaining about it at all. Curious.
Now the people who once chided people for "rooting against America" are doing exactly that. Curious.
A Fatetastic response Raz, you should be proud.
Needs more GOPtard. :yuk:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
So, in summation: The guy--
1. paid cash;
2. for a one-way ticket;
3. on an international flight;
4. to Detroit, the main hub for the Disneyland of the American Islamic community, Dearborn MI:
5. after his father called the US Embassy in Lagos directly less than a month before about his son's recent militantism.
In short, the ball was dropped, primarily overseas. If these flags don't go red, then it doesn't matter how many people don't get to bring their bottles of Head & Shoulders with them.
Supposedly Nigeria is a "cash society" due to the amount of fraud in the country, so the correlation between buying a ticket with cash and OMGTERRORIST may be weaker than expected.
The latest reports are saying that he actually purchased a round trip ticket.
The ball was still dropped. All mooslimbs should have mandatory secondary screening when entering the US from abroad.
Quote from: Fate on December 30, 2009, 07:34:04 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2009, 06:49:13 PM
So, in summation: The guy--
1. paid cash;
2. for a one-way ticket;
3. on an international flight;
4. to Detroit, the main hub for the Disneyland of the American Islamic community, Dearborn MI:
5. after his father called the US Embassy in Lagos directly less than a month before about his son's recent militantism.
In short, the ball was dropped, primarily overseas. If these flags don't go red, then it doesn't matter how many people don't get to bring their bottles of Head & Shoulders with them.
Supposedly Nigeria is a "cash society" due to the amount of fraud in the country, so the correlation between buying a ticket with cash and OMGTERRORIST may be weaker than expected.
The latest reports are saying that he actually purchased a round trip ticket.
The ball was still dropped. All mooslimbs should have mandatory secondary screening when entering the US from abroad.
Isn't Nigeria on some sort of Filthy Country list anyway? Nobody with flies on their eyelids and distended bellies with powdered milk moustaches shouldn't be allowed to fly anywhere anyway.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2009, 09:40:06 PM
Isn't Nigeria on some sort of Filthy Country list anyway? Nobody with flies on their eyelids and distended bellies with powdered milk moustaches shouldn't be allowed to fly anywhere anyway.
Don't you mean "fly nowhere noway?"
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2009, 09:49:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2009, 09:40:06 PM
Isn't Nigeria on some sort of Filthy Country list anyway? Nobody with flies on their eyelids and distended bellies with powdered milk moustaches shouldn't be allowed to fly anywhere anyway.
Don't you mean "fly nowhere noway?"
Noway nohow.
Terrorism update: a pseudo-molotov filled with diesel ( :huh:) found in the parking lot of the DHS in Philadelphia...
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 31, 2009, 12:46:01 AM
Terrorism update: a pseudo-molotov filled with diesel ( :huh:) found in the parking lot of the DHS in Philadelphia...
:lol: Pseudo-Molotov? What's that, like a pipe bomb without the pipe?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 31, 2009, 12:59:16 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 31, 2009, 12:46:01 AM
Terrorism update: a pseudo-molotov filled with diesel ( :huh:) found in the parking lot of the DHS in Philadelphia...
:lol: Pseudo-Molotov? What's that, like a pipe bomb without the pipe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Litvinov
Quote from: Rasmussen
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 31, 2009, 03:22:11 PM
Quote from: Rasmussen
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.
:rolleyes:
A bumbled underwear-bandit, who himself is no further threat, probably shouldn't make the cut...but I imagine most red-blooded Americans would, under the same cirmcumstances, do what my current avatar did to "Scorpio" to get information.
I'd start slicing off fingers.
Unless he was an American. Then he gets due process. Foreigners? Fuck 'em.
Such ingratitude.
The fellow did get you out of a boring business trip Ed :P
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 31, 2009, 12:46:01 AM
Terrorism update: a pseudo-molotov filled with diesel ( :huh:) found in the parking lot of the DHS in Philadelphia...
How do you fill a fake Russian hammer with diesel?
Interesting turn of events, it seems Aulaqi really is an important figure.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34650399/ns/world_news-washington_post/
QuoteU.S.-Yemeni cleric was 'very aware' of Nigerian
Investigators: Fort Hood linked radical likely met 'face-to-face' with suspect
By Sudarsan Raghavan
updated 4:10 a.m. ET Jan. 1, 2010
SANAA, Yemen - Investigators of the Christmas Day attempt to bring down a U.S. airliner are increasingly focused on the role of a radical Yemeni American cleric previously linked to the Fort Hood shootings, suspecting that he may have been involved in guiding the Nigerian man charged in last week's failed plane attack, Yemeni and U.S. officials say.
The extent of the contacts between the cleric, Anwar al-Aulaqi, and the plane suspect are growing more apparent as investigators continue their probe. A U.S. intelligence official said Thursday that "there was probably a face-to-face encounter" between Aulaqi and the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, during a stay in Yemen before the Nigerian man flew to Amsterdam and boarded Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines Flight 253. Separately, a top Yemeni government official said Abdulmutallab had probably met with suspected al-Qaeda operatives in a house that had been used by Aulaqi.
The house was subsequently destroyed in a Dec. 24 U.S.-backed Yemeni airstrike targeting an apparent meeting of suspected al-Qaeda leaders. Yemen's deputy prime minister for defense and security affairs, Rashad al-Alimi, said Thursday that Aulaqi was thought to be alive, despite earlier suggestions by Obama administration officials that the cleric had been killed in the attack.
Aulaqi, who once led prayers at a Northern Virginia mosque, became a focus of authorities' attention after the Nov. 5 shootings at Fort Hood in Texas, which killed 13 people. Aulaqi had traded e-mails with the alleged gunman, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, in the months before the attack. Aulaqi has said that he considers Hasan a "hero" but has denied inciting the Fort Hood rampage.
Aulaqi earlier developed a following on the Internet among radical Muslims because of his fiery sermons, and he has recently emerged as a key figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al-Qaeda branch suspected to be at the heart of the Christmas Day plot.
Yemenis cite U.S. lapses
It is not known how Aulaqi and Abdulmutallab first made contact, but a U.S. government official said Thursday that "it's clear that Aulaqi was very, very aware of this individual."
That revelation came as Yemeni officials decried a lack of U.S. cooperation in the months leading up to the foiled attack. Alimi said American authorities did not alert Yemen when U.S. intelligence learned in August that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was planning to set in motion "a Nigerian bomber."
Nor were the Yemenis informed that Abdulmutallab's father had raised concerns to U.S. officials in November that his son was in Yemen and was growing radicalized, Alimi said. Abdulmutallab was in the country from Aug. 4 to Dec. 7.
"If we had received the information at the appropriate time, our security apparatus could have taken obvious measures to stop him," Alimi said. "We believe the lack of sharing intelligence was a shortcoming that enabled the Nigerian to carry out such an attack."
U.S. officials said they did not realize the importance of the intelligence at the time and did not disclose it to one another, let alone foreign governments. The CIA declined to comment.
Using school as a 'cover'
Yemeni investigators say Abdulmutallab was probably recruited by al-Qaeda operatives before he came to Yemen in August. The Yemenis say he obtained a visa to study at the Sanaa Institute for the Arabic Language, where he had studied for several months in 2004 and 2005. Students can extend their visas relatively easily in Yemen once they have been approved to enter the country, Alimi said. Former classmates and teachers said Wednesday that Abdulmutallab had a good command of Arabic when he arrived.
The school, Alimi said, "was a cover."
Yemeni officials did a routine background check on Abdulmutallab and approved his student visa because they were reassured that his passport contained valid visas from the United States and Great Britain, the deputy prime minister said. "He was not on any blacklist."
Abdulmutallab is thought to have traveled in October to Shabwa, a province in southeastern Yemen and a known al-Qaeda stronghold, Alimi said. Investigators are also looking into whether he met al-Qaeda operatives in Marib province, which is adjacent to Shabwa, Alimi said.
Investigators suspect Shabwa was where Abdulmutallab, who allegedly had explosive chemicals sewn into his underwear, was trained and equipped.
The Aulaqi connection
In a remote, mountainous area of Shabwa, Alimi said, the 23-year-old engineering graduate probably met with al-Qaeda operatives in a house built by Aulaqi. Aulaqi had held theological sessions there in the past. Two U.S. sources said it was "plausible" that Abdulmutallab met al-Qaeda operatives there. U.S. officials said it was possible that Aulaqi and Abdulmutallab did not meet in person but added that they had at least talked on the phone.
Alimi described Aulaqi as a "spiritual adviser" to al-Qaeda. Aulaqi's family has denied such links.
Suspected al-Qaeda leaders were thought to be meeting in the house at the time of the Dec. 24 airstrike. U.S. and Yemeni officials said at the time that they believed Aulaqi was also at the meeting. But Alimi said Yemeni authorities now think Aulaqi was not present.
"For sure he was not killed," said Alimi, adding that Aulaqi's family and tribesmen in Shabwa have informed Yemeni authorities that he is alive.
Al-Qaeda's top two regional leaders, Nasser al-Wuhayshi and Said Ali al-Shihri, were said to be at the meeting and possibly killed. Alimi said the government was "not sure" whether they were dead.
Alimi said the extent of Aulaqi's role in recruiting and training Abdulmutallab remains unclear. Alimi views Aulaqi more as an inspirational figure rather than an operational one; so do some U.S. officials.
The al-Qaeda contacts
U.S. authorities suspect that Abdulmutallab's radicalization occurred as late as the last several months of 2009. Some of his former teachers and classmates at the language school he attended in August and September said Wednesday that he had planned to go to Hadhramaut province to attend a religious school, where he intended to learn Islamic law. Alimi said Yemeni investigators suspect Abdulmutallab cooked up the plans to disguise his travel to Shabwa, which is close to Hadhramaut.
It is still unclear how Abdulmutallab stayed so long in Yemen. Alimi said the school had extended his visa for the duration of his study. But school officials said they had not asked for an extension. In fact, they had been under the impression that Abdulmutallab was leaving Yemen at the end of September.
Investigators are also questioning his acquaintances in the capital, Sanaa. Alimi said the school's staff members were not suspected of recruiting or radicalizing him. The focus, he said, is on three mosques in the city's historic section that Abdulmutallab frequented. Investigators believe he met one or more al-Qaeda operatives at the mosques who vetted him and then provided further directions and contacts.
"For certain, he would not have left for Shabwa unless he met a contact person here in Sanaa," Alimi said.
Staff writers Karen DeYoung and Carrie Johnson in Washington contributed to this report.