Another Terrorist Attack?

[MJS]

Saw this

ROMULUS, Mich. – An attempted terrorist attack on a Christmas Day flight began with a pop and a puff of smoke — sending passengers scrambling to tackle a Nigerian man who claimed to be acting on orders from al-Qaida to blow up the airliner, officials and travelers said.
The commotion began as Northwest Airlines Flight 253, carrying 278 passengers and 11 crew members from Amsterdam, prepared to land in Detroit just before noon Friday. Travelers said they smelled smoke, saw a glow, and heard what sounded like firecrackers. At least one person climbed over others and jumped on the man, who officials say was trying to ignite an explosive device.

Well, its nice to know that airport security is still top notch. LOL! Seriously though, I tip my hat and give some big props to the passenger that jumped from his seat and took action. This made me laugh though:

The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism and stricter security measures were quickly imposed on airline travel

Ummm...yeah, ya think!! Why is it, that things are lax, a tragedy (9/11) happens, things are all tight, things relax because nothing else has happened, then BOOM...something else happens, and now they're tight again.

 

[Carol]

Ummm...yeah, ya think!! Why is it, that things are lax, a tragedy (9/11) happens, things are all tight, things relax because nothing else has happened, then BOOM...something else happens, and now they're tight again.

Methinks its Amsterdam that needs to beef up their security and threat detection practices. The fireworks weren't brought aboard a US airport...

 

[The Last Legionary]

Why is it every moron with an araby name who tries to blow up an airplane and claims he's working for the enemy is called a terrorist? That's so not fair to the real terrorists who actually succeed because they use real explosives and not bottle rockets.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Why is it every moron with an araby name who tries to blow up an airplane and claims he's working for the enemy is called a terrorist? That's so not fair to the real terrorists who actually succeed because they use real explosives and not bottle rockets.

Because it makes for more exciting headlines, as well as allows the government to make an excuse over tighter control over our lives.

 

[AriesKai]

Because it makes for more exciting headlines, as well as allows the government to make an excuse over tighter control over our lives.

I think i'll disagree on that last part:

allows the government to make an excuse over tighter control over our lives.

Once they take away my 2nd amendment and/or anything else in that Constitution; then I'll side with you on that one.
Once that happens, even the Secret Service won't stop me (and many others) from walking right into that White House and slapping the President and the First Lady! :asian:




DURKA DURKA MUHAMMAD JIHAD!!! :flame::shooter:

 

[Tez3]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6968539.ece

He was a known radicalised Muslim whose own father had reported him, he was also banned from the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8431530.stm

 

[MJS]

Saw this today. Hmm....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091228/ap_on_go_ot/us_airliner_attack_explosive

 

[MJS]

Methinks its Amsterdam that needs to beef up their security and threat detection practices. The fireworks weren't brought aboard a US airport...

While that may be true, fact remains that a) it goes to show that all airports have become relaxed and b) I saw in yesterdays paper, a bomb sniffing dog and his handler going thru bags in a US airport.

 

[MJS]

Because it makes for more exciting headlines, as well as allows the government to make an excuse over tighter control over our lives.

True as it may be, I for one, would rather be safe than sorry. A few bumps in the travel process vs. getting blow up over the ocean....Hmm....which one would I rather pick?

See, this is yet another damned if you do, damned if you dont situation. If the airports and Gov't do nothing and something happens, everyone and their brother will be bitching and crying that nothing was done. Let the airports and Gov't take steps to hopefully ensure the safety of its passengers, and people still ***** and cry.

 

[Bruno@MT]

True as it may be, I for one, would rather be safe than sorry. A few bumps in the travel process vs. getting blow up over the ocean....Hmm....which one would I rather pick?

See, this is yet another damned if you do, damned if you dont situation. If the airports and Gov't do nothing and something happens, everyone and their brother will be bitching and crying that nothing was done. Let the airports and Gov't take steps to hopefully ensure the safety of its passengers, and people still ***** and cry.

What I don't get is why the terrorists (or wannabees) still bother with air travel targets. 1) the security is fairly strict 2) the passengers know that compliance will kill them.

There are dozens of soft and insecure targets that are easy to hit and impossible to defend. And they would be far more effect at spreading terror than plane bombings. I bet that many of us could come up with half a dozen plans in half an hour, with a reasonable chance of success. And getting weapons and powder is not that hard in the US.

So that begs the question: If al qaeda is as well funded and professionally ran as they say, why aren't they the ones coming to the same conclusion?

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

What I don't get is why the terrorists (or wannabees) still bother with air travel targets. 1) the security is fairly strict 2) the passengers know that compliance will kill them.

There are dozens of soft and insecure targets that are easy to hit and impossible to defend. And they would be far more effect at spreading terror than plane bombings. I bet that many of us could come up with half a dozen plans in half an hour, with a reasonable chance of success. And getting weapons and powder is not that hard in the US.

So that begs the question: If al qaeda is as well funded and professionally ran as they say, why aren't they the ones coming to the same conclusion?

Well, if you belong to an organization whose goal is to destroy an entire society, then it makes sense to target every component of that society's infrastructure...transportation, communication, basic services such as electricity/gas, food production, the people's trust in the government's leadership and trust in officers charged with keeping the peace.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Personally, I'd prefer it if they had more dogs at airports. Dogs can detect anything you train them to detect...explosives, guns, biological weapons, drugs...and people respond to them much more positively than to being wanded or probed. The problem is that dogs require extensive training and there simply aren't enough trainers employed by law enforcement acencies. I think that a major shift in thinking is required.

Any MT LEOs out there with dog experience who care to comment?

 

[Phoenix44]

I thought we're fighting them over there so they don't attack us over here? Maybe we should attend more to actual HOMEland security, and less to fighting wars thousands of miles away.

 

[Tez3]

Al Qaeda isn't one organisation as such, it's a group of loosely assocaited groups. Anyone who shares the same aims as them can call themselves Al Qaeda.It isn't funded by a main organisation, more each splinter group funds and runs itself. If they attack somewhere they all say Al Qaeda were responsible. It's one on the things that makes hunting them down difficult, groups literally do not know about the existance of other groups. It also means it's diffuclt to cut it's head off, normally that would mean the organisation flailing but with so many separate groups under the banner of Al Qaeda this won't happen.
It's impossible too to work out any place they are targetting as only a small group know. They will generally be in touch with the 'main' people ie Bin Laden and his leaders but not necessarily. Many will work on their own having nothing to do with Al Qaeda as such, this isn't discouraged as it makes the organisation seem bigger than it is.
Think of it as martial arts, TKD seems a very big 'organisation' until you realise there's many groups and many leaders and yes just as there's squabbles among them there is squabbles among the terrorists, a fair bit of rivalry too.

 

[MJS]

What I don't get is why the terrorists (or wannabees) still bother with air travel targets. 1) the security is fairly strict 2) the passengers know that compliance will kill them.

1) Its been a while since I've flown, but at that time, things were not as tight as they were after 9-11. For example, I didn't have to remove my shoes, and I really didn't see any increased LEO presence.

2) Agreed, and thank God there are some people who actually stand up and challenge the bad guys, such as the guy in this story.

There are dozens of soft and insecure targets that are easy to hit and impossible to defend. And they would be far more effect at spreading terror than plane bombings. I bet that many of us could come up with half a dozen plans in half an hour, with a reasonable chance of success. And getting weapons and powder is not that hard in the US.

True.

So that begs the question: If al qaeda is as well funded and professionally ran as they say, why aren't they the ones coming to the same conclusion?

No idea. Perhaps they're not as well funded and professionally run, as we may think. Just an assumption on my part, as I really have no idea.

 

[MJS]

Hmm....this lasted a long time. LOL.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091228/ap_on_bi_ge/us_airline_attack_passenger_tolerance