Bombs Found on Airplanes!

[Empty Hands]

The only reason there have not been more bomb attacks on planes is because AQ hasn't wanted to do any.

I disagree. AQ is isolated, under constant attack, and not that competent to begin with. When an AQ sympathizer type has tried to bomb a plane (Underwear dude, Richard Reid, etc.) the attempt has been amateurish and easy to catch. Reid tried to light his shoes with a match, fer cryin' out loud. This incident was an order of magnitude more clever and complex than any attack that alQaeda has attempted. Everything they've tried has been simple, from gunmen at the embassies to a Zodiac packed with explosives to boxcutters on a plane. This was something different.

For that matter, there really is no cohesive alQaeda organization like there used to be. Most of these terror groups who call themselves alQaeda are not in contact with binLaden or his deputies, and take the name alQaeda (in Iraq, in the Arabian Penninsula, etc.) as a branding tactic.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I disagree. AQ is isolated, under constant attack, and not that competent to begin with. When an AQ sympathizer type has tried to bomb a plane (Underwear dude, Richard Reid, etc.) the attempt has been amateurish and easy to catch. Reid tried to light his shoes with a match, fer cryin' out loud. This incident was an order of magnitude more clever and complex than any attack that alQaeda has attempted. Everything they've tried has been simple, from gunmen at the embassies to a Zodiac packed with explosives to boxcutters on a plane. This was something different.

Asymmetric warfare uses what works, and focuses on low-risk, high-yield, regardless of technology used. It's classic Sun Tsu.

"If strong, appear weak. If near, appear far."

I'm no expert on AQ, but from what I've read, this also utilized PETN. Richard Reid also used PETN in his primative shoe bomb; from what I read, he was hardly an AQ operative, but a willing and somewhat developmentally-disabled dupe who offered himself up for use by AQ, and they took a chance, seeing it as extremely low-risk.

For that matter, there really is no cohesive alQaeda organization like there used to be. Most of these terror groups who call themselves alQaeda are not in contact with binLaden or his deputies, and take the name alQaeda (in Iraq, in the Arabian Penninsula, etc.) as a branding tactic.

That may be the case. I don't know and can't claim expertise.

The point, however, is that this gaping hole has existed in our security since dot. We've know about it. Congress has ordered the TSA not once, but several times, to close it and the TSA has failed to do so. Adding layers of offensive personal searches to people, when the cargo on the SAME PLANE is not searched at all, is not security. I don't care if it's AQ or Captain Freaking Kangeroo who wants to kill us - if they want us, they got us. The only reason this well-publicized hole has not been exploited is because they haven't wanted to until now.

 

[MJS]

This is part of why I'm furious over this. I've been carping about this exact issue for years. I seldom got responses from elected officials, other than form letters ensuring me that our nation's security was their highest priority. Nothing got done.

And what makes me even madder was that people would tell me "Well, what we're doing is better than nothing, at least." No, it's not. It's WORSE than nothing, because it gives the illusion of security where there isn't any.

The only reason there have not been more bomb attacks on planes is because AQ hasn't wanted to do any. If they had, this well-known security hole would have been exploited by now.

And frankly, I don't believe that the bombs were meant to go off. I believe they were designed to be found. Asymmetric warfare here; it attacks our infrastructure at a critical time; cargo shipments will now have to be inspected by hand at great cost, and right as we enter the Christmas package season. This is going to hammer our economy and slow down commerce as well as creating more fear. Oh joy oh bliss.

Agreed. My wife and I were talking about this today. This does seem more like a, "Hey dummies, look what we did!!! We got thru a hole that you clowns forgot about! Hahahaha!!!" So in the long run, you're right...now everyone will run around like a chicken with their head cut off, as usual, spending more money for 'security', further draining this wonderful economy that we're living with.

 

[Empty Hands]

Adding layers of offensive personal searches to people, when the cargo on the SAME PLANE is not searched at all, is not security.

I agree 1000%. It's a shame what we're giving up for literally nothing.

 

[Bruno@MT]

And frankly, I don't believe that the bombs were meant to go off. I believe they were designed to be found. Asymmetric warfare here; it attacks our infrastructure at a critical time; cargo shipments will now have to be inspected by hand at great cost, and right as we enter the Christmas package season. This is going to hammer our economy and slow down commerce as well as creating more fear. Oh joy oh bliss.

If the bombs had gone off, there would have been a massive, public-supported witch hunt. Now, the public stays calm, there will not be retaliation, and there will be a significant impact on our economy and infrastructure. Not to mention the increased irritation factor.

It's similar to the bottled liquid restrictions.
Scientist argued that the liquid binary explosives plan had not a chance in hell to succeed. Yet here we are, unable to bring a bottle of water on to the plane. And now they have decided that it wasn't useful to do so, but the restriction will remain in effect until 2013 or 2014?

The nice security officer in Berlin airport let me get on the plane with my swiss army knife (in an uncommon display of common sense) but she objected to the half empty bottle of water. So I started drinking with the intention of emptying it on the spot, and then she waved me through with a 'yeah whatever'.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The nice security officer in Berlin airport let me get on the plane with my swiss army knife (in an uncommon display of common sense) but she objected to the half empty bottle of water. So I started drinking with the intention of emptying it on the spot, and then she waved me through with a 'yeah whatever'.

Side issue here, but wouldn't a much more practical solution simply be to ask the person carrying the beverage to take a sip of it? When entering a courthouse once while carrying a soda bottle, one of the security officers asked me to take a swig, I suppose to prove it wasn't some type of poison intended for a judge. Is there a reason this would not work for TSA?

 

[CanuckMA]

I like the liquids and gel thing. I can carry an empty container of any size through security. I can also buy water bottles after security. I can carry liquids and gels provisind they are in containers of 30ml or less and that all my containers fit in a 1 litre bag. Has it never occured to the geniouses at TSA that a bunch of my buds can also carry a buunch of 30ml bottles, and that we ca then combine them in a 1 litre bottle after going through security? I mean, do they think terrorists are THAT stupid?

Meanwhile luggage goes unchecked.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Because the TSA aren't real cops like the guys at the court house are.

 

[crushing]

Will we ever get the straight story on this incident? News reports seem to have contradictory information.

Bombs were on the planes and jets were scrambled; no, they were stopped in Dubai. An informant tipped the Saudis; no, it was US intelligence that got the tracking numbers. The flights were out of Yemen; no, packages are trucked out of Yemen and put on flights in Saudi Arabia. It was eplosives; no, they were only apparently explosives.

Then there is the repeated statement that the packages were being shipped to JEWISH Synagogues. As opposed to Christian or Islamic synagogues?

The whole thing seems to be a cluster**** and makes it seem there may be more luck than skill involved in preventing these "apparent explosive" materials from doing what they were intended to do.

If anyone has any links to decent resources about this, I would appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[Bruno@MT]

The only reason that there are no successful organized atacks is because there aren't any organized attacks. Nothing that has received a modicum of funding and research.

Most people with half a brain and a couple of K's in funding can launch succesful terror attacks. Want to really stire up some ****? Get an X-ray triggered pipe bomb into someone's luggage. hat is easy enough to make, and would a) have a significant impact on soft targets (if you can somehow get it into someone's carry-on) and b) cripple the airport and all traffic for weeks. And that is just the first idea that popped into my head, searching for an example. Anyone with some funding and a place in the woods to test it could do this. Admittedly, this would be even easier if you could get a low wage job at the airport.

But why focus on airports? security is tighter. How about a crowded imax? A greyhound bus? a potable water supply? Transformer cabins?. Hell, how about just lighting forest fires in august?

And I am an honest man. So now imagine al-qaeda with a decent amount of funding, people who don't care about whether they survive or not, and with some people thinking up things to really hit where it hurts.

No. The only reason such things aren't happening is because they aren't trying. And there is no need either. The US is more than happy enough to hamstring itself. It's like the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[CanuckMA]

Can I try too????



Get a truck full of explosive, tou know like Tim McVeigh did, and drive it to the middle of the Holland Tunnel at rush hour and kaboom.

 

[MJS]

If the bombs had gone off, there would have been a massive, public-supported witch hunt. Now, the public stays calm, there will not be retaliation, and there will be a significant impact on our economy and infrastructure. Not to mention the increased irritation factor.

It's similar to the bottled liquid restrictions.
Scientist argued that the liquid binary explosives plan had not a chance in hell to succeed. Yet here we are, unable to bring a bottle of water on to the plane. And now they have decided that it wasn't useful to do so, but the restriction will remain in effect until 2013 or 2014?

The nice security officer in Berlin airport let me get on the plane with my swiss army knife (in an uncommon display of common sense) but she objected to the half empty bottle of water. So I started drinking with the intention of emptying it on the spot, and then she waved me through with a 'yeah whatever'.

OTOH, were there to be a cry for retaliation, if a bomb were to have actually gone off, in addition to the witch hunt, you'd also get the BH club members (bleeding heart) who would say that we should do nothing. Again, much like anything that happens, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont.

On another note, regarding the liquid...earlier this year, during the Summer, my wife and I went to Vegas. I noticed the wonderful TSA jokers, confiscating a half empty plastic bottle of Sprite. Of course, while the realized that liquids had to be in a specific size container, we forgot about the specific bag size. So, with our liquids in the proper size containers, we tossed everything into 1 large gallon size bag, only to be told by the TSA that we had to seperate everything into 2 smaller bags. My question was this...whats the difference if you have the liquid in 2 bags or 1? Its all going right back into the same carry on. I figured it best to not bother asking. We got smaller bags, did what they asked, and caught our flight.

Lucky for me, I dont fly that often. LOL.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

OTOH, were there to be a cry for retaliation, if a bomb were to have actually gone off, in addition to the witch hunt, you'd also get the BH club members (bleeding heart) who would say that we should do nothing. Again, much like anything that happens, we're damned if we do, damned if we dont.

I noticed the opposite. The BHL went Nutsy Fagen over the Iraq invasion, but they shut their pie-holes when it came to Afghanistan. The noises coming of them when we brought the fury in a hurry on the Taliban were rather tiny; only a few nimrods making sad faces and marching around with signs. For some time afterwards, there were anti-war people who were making it clear they were anti-Iraq war, not anti-Afghanistan war. I think most of them made a 'good war' and 'bad war' distinction.

A plane bomb detonated by AQ who were known to be inhabiting a specific area would not, I think, arouse much sympathy from thumb-suckers. Whether out of agreement with the war hawks or fear of being branded anti-American with good cause, I can't say.

But I suspect strongly that the bombs were not designed to explode. Their mission has been fulfilled by being discovered.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yup. "Oh ****, bombs on planes. We need to over react. Quick, mandatory dissection of every 3rd traveler."

 

[Xue Sheng]

:uhohh: Speaking as one about to take a flight :anic:

THANKS!!! :miffer: THANKS A LOT!!! :rpo:

 

[WC_lun]

Maybe I just haven't been paying attention, but I haven't seen a lot of outcry by "bleeding hearts" to do nothing in response to attacks on innocent people. Virtually everyone I know, both from left and right, feel very strongly these terrorist should be brought to justice, either in chains or in a box. I can honestly say I have never heard anyone say, in person or in the media, that we should "do nothing."

 

[Bruno@MT]

I noticed the opposite. The BHL went Nutsy Fagen over the Iraq invasion, but they shut their pie-holes when it came to Afghanistan. The noises coming of them when we brought the fury in a hurry on the Taliban were rather tiny; only a few nimrods making sad faces and marching around with signs. For some time afterwards, there were anti-war people who were making it clear they were anti-Iraq war, not anti-Afghanistan war. I think most of them made a 'good war' and 'bad war' distinction.

I would be one of those people, though I am not BHL.
Most reasonable people understood that there were good reasons for the Afghan invasion. Around that time, the US had a tremendous amount of goodwill and international backing for what they were doing.

With Iraq, we all saw through the smoke and mirrors. Just because you had our goodwill then did not mean that we were going to commit our country to war on a half baked explanation without being allowed even to know why or to see the proof.

I still support the war in Afghanistan, and I still condemn the war in Iraq.

 

[Mark Jordan]

The package which originated in Yemen contains the same powerful explosive used in the failed Christmas Day Detroit airliner attack last year by someone who was trained in Yemen. From what I heard 100 g of PETN can destroy a car.

 

[Bruno@MT]

The package which originated in Yemen contains the same powerful explosive used in the failed Christmas Day Detroit airliner attack last year by someone who was trained in Yemen. From what I heard 100 g of PETN can destroy a car.

If it was PETN, then it is reasonable to assume that they got it from a serious player, and that their handler is a serious player as well. And that begs the question: why such amateuristic attempts?
Trying to light a shoe on fire? Really?

Why not a simple electronic detonator?
Or in the case of the package: a pressure switch?
Or an X ray sensor (blowing up the security terminal would have more far reaching after effects).

For the packages you could even send out multiple at the same time from different countries, and the entire global shipping infrastructure would come to a grinding halt. as everybody would try to figure out how on earth to make it safe.

So I still think that they are not really trying.

 

[CanuckMA]

Bruno, I think you're wrong. Not only are they trying, but they are succeding.

I get the feeling that they do understand that any act that would cause a loss of life will be met by force. Your analysis on Afghanistan and Iraq is dead on. They know that if they blow up an airliner, the US will have wide support for military action against the terrorist and the country harboring them.

So instead, they plant a bomb on a plane and tip the intelligence services. No kaboom, no loss of life. Instead, the US ratchets up security, more inconvinience, more costs, more slow down in moving goods and people.

Terrorism is about changing a political system. I'd say they succeded.