Latest Terrorist attempt
 

I hope He burned his stipid self UP !!!
Oh and the FuckSticks that let him on the plane and screened him(NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ) should get A STIFF sentance if not Life !

I originally heard he was British, but turns out he only studied here. Phew - we did seem to be breeding them lately. In fact we refused him a visa to come back into the country in May.

He's Nigerian born and get this - his Dad was a Govt Minister who went on to become head of the Bank of Nigeria. I think I have an email from him somewhere...

He boarded the plane in Amsterdam, so it's their security staff that will be getting the rocket. Perhaps America should send some soldiers over there to help them ;)

Ah, just seen. According to the BBC Back to you I'm afraid.

I just posted over in the Cellar's Travel board about some of the new security measures:

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php...801#post620801

Expect more changes and further restrictions as things progress. :(

I read a report that stated the would-be terrorist started his journey in Nigeria, so security at the Lagos airport also failed. Is there any security in Nigeria, anyway? The airports must be jammed with Nigerians attempting to leave with all their checks from the USA. :right:

I don't understand why everyone else has to suffer. Make the terrorists suffer.

Only change I would make is to put a uniformed (and armed) air marshal on every flight. Already, I find the security to be overbearing to the point that I don't fly commercial unless it is really necessary. I'm driving to more places that I would have flown to and rented a car before the advent of airline security.

I'm tired of prescreening my luggage. I'm teed off that I can't bring a snack or drink on board with me. I'm sick of ditching my lighter. I don't like moving all metal items to checked baggage prior to the flight. Taking off my shoes is just silly. The delays are onerous. Why in the world should I wait in a two hour line just to get on a plane?

Punish the bad guys without making life miserable for everyone.

When you do this, the terrorists win!

However, they were all over it when Ivana Trump had a hissy fit:

http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...9003&GT1=28103

Sure, profiling can include old rich tired gold-diggers, and foreigners who come bearing explosives. We're so afraid someone will cry that they've been profiled, that we're only looking for crazy white bitches now. :lol:

Link

Yeh it worked real well. Please tell me she really isn't this stupid.

By fellow passengers, not anything that our system did.

As a child, I used to enjoy flying. That was a different time, of course, with meals on the flight, and real silverware, and being able to go into the cockpit to see all the cool stuff up there.

I flew to Florida this year, but only because all of my girlfriends were going, and one of them booked the tickets (and, apparently, there's no Magic Mickey Bus from the train station in Orlando).

In addition to the inconvenience of the security screening, and having to throw away a perfectly good lighter, you're packed in like cattle, and they don't feed you. At least there were plenty of overpriced concessions on the far side of security where you were able to buy snacks and beverages for the flight.

I want the TSA to profile the heck out of people ... by behavior as well as demographics.

I thought this fellow was actually stopped by a malfunctioning fuse?

That was the flight Banana Lady was on a day or two earlier.

I agree. Sadly, it's come to that. When we're so afraid someone might get their feelings hurt, at the expense of a boatload, um, planeload of innocent people...well, eff that.

This is a far cry from my usual liberal opinions, but desperate times and all. I'll tell you what, when I'm running around Nigeria with explosives strapped to me I'll be unsurprised and less than indignant when they look a little more closely into my background.

I always think of that scene in Airport, where the customs guy is suspicious about D.O. Guerrero's behavior. That's the kind of profiling that should be happening.

Oh wow, another for my netflix queue! Thanks for the reminder.

The only danger in profiling is that the bad guys can use it against you. The drug smugglers have certainly learned. The cheap dumb ones get caught with drug mules that pretty much look like drug mules.

All of these people caught and we're still swimming in drugs. If you want to move millions of dollars of drugs or guns up the East coast, do you put it in the trunk of a red sports car full of gangbangers or do you put it in station wagon with Ozzie and Harriet and their kids? You probably run the red car a few miles ahead of Ozzie and Harriet as the cop magnet.

I'm not saying that all profiling is counter-productive, just that it's not perfect and too much reliance on it can create blind spots.

I do not know how anyone could strap a bomb to my person without my knowledge.

Airport is one of my favorite books and favorite movies.

It is often in power rotation on Encore movie channel, so sometimes I'll see it on the channel guide and just flip it on to see where it is, just to catch some of my favorite parts (like Mrs. Quonset explaining how she gets onto planes or the dad in the development off the end of the runway freaking out while he's saying grace). I grew up in Chicago and flew out of O'Hare more times than I can remember, so there's a lot of nostalgia in the movie for me.

I thought it was a watch instantly on netflix, but I can't find it now.

She was our governor. Yes, she really is that fucking stupid.

I hope I don't sound too idealistic but Roosevelt had a point when he said "all we have to fear is fear itself." The terrorists win whether they blow up a plane or just disrupt things which is what they are doing now. And their return on investment is pretty good when something like this happens, not much happens but they make the powerful very afraid, so in their eyes they have succeeded.

News reports say this guy had been in contact with a well known fanatical cleric in Yemen I think and possibly the same one that the nutjob in San Antonio at the army base was in contact with prior to shooting up thing there. Blowing up Yemen is a bit to simplistic but it seems like some kind of joint international pressure is needed.

Our powerful aren't afraid! They fly on private jets.

Or on military jets when Congress wants to cavort in Scotland.

what no one is saying, and what I really want to know is . . .

did the guy actually blow his dick off?

I think he just burned it really well. Well done.

"Well done" as in, no pink left in the middle?

Ok this is just getting stupid. What kind of idiot is in charge of TSA?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_airlin...ck_regulations

Uh wrong thread - try this one . . . Link

"Ok this is just getting stupid. What kind of idiot is in charge of TSA?"

I fear the same idiots that got the TSA where they are today! For instance, I've seen several reports that TSA in some airports are not allowing any unmarked bottles of liquid in 3 oz or less size through security in carry on luggage, only commercial name brand bottles. So the TSA previously approved clear bottles sold by travel companies like Magellan and others or the ones you get at sporting goods stores like REI are now obsolete. If the bottle says Pantene Shampoo it is ok because a terrorist would never figure out that they could buy those and replace the contents with chemicals that could be used to make a bomb. This is the same TSA that made sure that anyone buying a one way ticket got extra rigorous searches because anyone with any sense would realize that would be terrorists only need a one way ticket and can save a few bucks on the ticket and not buy a leg they won't ever use. :eyebrow:

I'm glad you know how to identify them. Sell the secret to governments worldwide and you can make a fortune.
Yay! You also know how to identify the bad guys! Sell the secret to governments worldwide and you can make a fortune.
Funny, profiling by demographics is usually regarded as fascist. I know it fuelled unrest during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
You can be all for it, but it doesn't work. Targetting anyone coming into England with an Irish passport/ accent/ name only raised tensions. My friend's husband - a British Citizen of Pakistani parents - was held for hours at US Customs and questioned on everythign from his income to his bank statements. Both are decent Westernised Muslims (she has US nationality) but both were very shaken by the ordeal. I'm not saying check no-one. I'm just saying over-zealous targeting marginalises and potentially crimalises people. And is a far cry from American standards as I have learned them here.

I think the new rules are just stupid and they wouldn't have stopped this most recent nutter. He didn't get up, but remained seated, and the bomb was in his undies, not a copy of Reader's Digest. Just how unpleasant are they going to make flying, anyhow? You can't use the restroom and you can't even read a book. I'm glad that I no longer have the need to fly anywhere. I'd rather spend 8 hours in a car than 15 minutes on an airplane with these new and ridiculous rules. :eyebrow:

There's a bunch of Arabs or Iranians or whatever down at registration, talking furtively. They're probably not terrorists. But how do I know?

I just have to walk by and hope for no bombs. *shrugs* I never used to feel this way about anyone.

Being shaken by an ordeal is a small price to pay, for the safety of those who are just minding their own business in their own homes and places of work.

Like I said, I'll expect the same when I start running around Nigeria or Iraq.

So, deal with it, or don't fly. These are the times we live in. There is a choice, just not that one you all would like.

:notworthy:

Sounds similar to what happened to anyone Oriental-looking after Pearl Harbor was bombed.

Oh well. So be it.

You know it's not the same, but you're on that horse of righteousness and represent all that is good. Ride on, cowboy, ride on.

How exactly is what you posted so different? Please enlighten us.

Link
Thanks for telling the rest of us what we already knew. . . Next!

A few days later the President finally speaks...
Link
Does anyone else feel that we just got lucky on this one?

Napolitano is a dumb ass. She got caught up in playing the shift blame game. No surprise.

Whatever - I'm serious. Is there anything we can really do about this. Its one thing to address measures on flights within the US, but with flights coming in from other countries, can we trust their security measures? Apparently not.

You know, I don't think I've ever heard how many spies and saboteurs they netted with that move?

One of the problems with profiling is that it has a tendency to net people who 'look suspicious'. That means we begin to count all arabs as looking suspicious, and in particular any arab who presents a traditional arabic appearance (dress, beard etc). That makes it very easy for those who actually do mean harm to circumvent the system by doing their best to look unsuspicious: by wearing western clothes, by shaving their beard etc. Consequently, the ones most likely to be pulled in by profiling are the ones least likely to be up to no good.

If you were intent on bombing a plane; would you turn up to the airport wearing robes and a long beard? Or would you be clean-shaven and wearing a suit? Would you be gathered together in clumps speaking in your own language, or would you be boarding separately having learned and adopted an American accent?

Profiling is a very wide net which catches far too many people and notoriously allows through the very people you want to stop. In doing so you antagonise and potentially criminalise those whose support you most need.

It's particularly fraught when it comes to something like Islamic identities; given that ethnicity amongst the faithful is very wide indeed. So, do you stop anyone with black skin in case they come from an islamic part of Africa? Do you stop anyone with a moslem sounding name? Perhaps Obama, or Mohammed? How many of your own citizens re you going to hang a cloud of suspicion over? How many generations of settled American citizenry have now been deemed suspect because of actions taken by foreign radicals?

It doesn't keep you safe. Actual intelligence keeps you safe, or rather it should do, if the warnings are listened to and acted upon. Which in this case they clearly werent.

Would it be possible for us to control the security at the origin point of any flight that will enter the US? With GOVERNMENT employees, not privatized-McDonald's-reject-minimum-wage rent-a-cops?

I don't see why we can't limit the number of people who enter the US - there's really not a need for a good percentage of these people to come into my country, IMHO.

I really don't see how retreating into splendid isolation would help America. How would you reduce the numbers? On what criteria? What would that do to your tourist industry? How many jobs would be lost if fewer people travelled to visit America? The people who don't 'need' to be there are people who are there to visit and spend money.

I shouldn't be, but I'm amazed that the Democrat and Republican (sympathizers) have now flipped positions from the W administration. Now the Dems are spouting xenophobic nonsense and the Reps are defending freedom of movement. It is to laugh.

That sounds harsh as I read it but it is what I'm hearing.

It's a global economy. You can't shut that down, not without committing economic suicide.

The only 'system' that works is having the attacker get swarmed by his fellow passengers in 0.001 seconds. Everything else is window dressing. Inconvenient, racist and ineffective window dressing.

I don't think the collective "us" you speak of needs enlightened. Frankly, most of these folks think for themselves. As far as enlightening you, you don't listen to anyone anyway. So, bite me.

For everyone else: I know my thinking isn't right. It goes against everything I've ever felt about humans and diversity...

I struggle with this feeling. Working where I do, MANY walks of life seem suspect. Where do you think they'll target next? Large schools? Libraries? Museums? When a kid (which this last guy was pretty much) believes that blowing up a plane, and dying for a religious idea, is honorable, how are any of us to not be at least a little apprehensive when you pass a group of folks and they're speaking in tongues ;) and looking around furtively? When explosives are carried around in their undies...how can we know?

Not proud of this feeling. Perhaps it'll pass, but the terrorists score small victories every day in people like me, in airport security issues, in distrust, in not wanting to travel overseas...

It is up to me to overcome the distrust.

I agree with Dana that intelligence, not fear, is what should keep us safe. The last administration was too busy having coffee with the Bin Ladens. Maybe we'll get better.

Those are good questions. I was thinking more "grand scheme of things" rather than specifics, but...

How would you reduce the numbers? Just not let as many people in. Stop them at the source.

On what criteria? That's the difficult one. "Need" to me isn't the same as "need" to someone else.

What would that do to your tourist industry? How many jobs would be lost if fewer people travelled to visit America? The people who don't 'need' to be there are people who are there to visit and spend money. That's the eternal question: where is the balance between spending (or losing) money and security? There's no pleasing everyone on this point. Nobody wants to be inconvenienced when trying to fly. Nobody wants to be (or their loved ones to be) blown up. Nobody wants the terrorists to win, whatever that means. Given the ultimate option of losing one's job or being blown up, I think most Americans would choose to lose their job.

I can only speak for myself, but on 911, I said we should close the borders for awhile. And not because my mother and sister were killed in the WTC.

For purposes of air travel, I say we strip search everyone. I volunteer to search women, ages 21 to 50, C cup or greater.:ggw: People should have to really want to fly. :D

Okee dokee, but keep in mind, with your parameters you're gonna get some stinky skanky ho-bags coming through your line. You might want to be just a bit more selective, such as: has bathed in the last week, free of crabs, with no open sores. A-cup, B-cup, C-cup, Double D's...no one body type is immune to skankism.

gotcha :right:

Assuming terrorists are clever and have an understanding of our security systems, there will always be a risk that security measures can be bypassed. Even though it may have a small effect, I don't know how banning everything that could potentially be an explosive will solve the problem since a terrorist will just quickly adapt and use a new method. There is the obvious question of where we want our security versus airplane freedom equilibrium but it seems that the act of addressing that issue will naturally make it worthless since publicly stating the line where security will not cross does not seem intelligent from a "lets stop terrorist attacks" standpoint.

For racial discrimination, especially with Muslims, I would not be surprised if that actually backfired and created more problems than it solves. There have been numerous amounts of Somalis that have been tailed by the CIA here in Minneapolis for terrorist reasons and I strongly believe that we will send more off the edge by treating entire ethnic/religious groups as second class citizens. Also, keep in mind that the isolation of Muslims in the United States is a goal of Al Qaeda. Like airport security, this issue is a tight rope act and it seems most officials are plastered beyond belief.

Good piece here on the travel security theater:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli..._on_flight_253

Ha, now you're my editor? My sentence stands as written, "to be" is extraneous. Quote me all you want, but don't impose your idea of correct grammar on me. I shouldn't be surprised, the way you cut and pasted my individual words before, taking me out of context...OMG, yeah. That is your MO.

(chuckle) An editor, with the crap blogs you post and call "news." That's rich!

That was a very good snapshot.

As Dana stated intel is the key. But really, to take it one step further, counter-intellegence is paramount in that approach. We have to infiltrate the organizations and allow the agencies who have the expertise a free hand to exploit their weaknesses from the inside. We have a huge problem will the lack of any form of intel in many parts of this world. It takes many years (10 - 20) to form the base of a strong counter intel program in the areas of concern. And with the recent abuses that were exposed in the last 8 years many of those people are now gun shy as to what and what they should or should not do. There is much repair that needs to done for this process to move forward effectively. It will take years of investment and selective development of resources to gain the intel insight or position the right people to do the job effectively.

On the other hand, with the openess of our society, the bad guys have had many years to develop their base.

Really? I didn't know it was extraneous. I stand corrected.

Ha! Of course you do. Someone write that down. Even dripping with sarcasm, it's a first for classhole.

No sarcasm implied nor intended. I always thought it was necessary to include the "to be".

"The car needs to be cleaned"
vs.
"The car needs cleaned."
still doesn't sound right to me.

The car needs cleaned does sound a bit off, but it's still correct. Which is more nearly correct? I don't know. I tend to leave "to be" out of sentences when I don't think the extra words are needed. I do this so I have room for more filler in the way of run-on sentences, dangling participles, and extreme hyberbole.

Also, the act of "being cleaned" is a physical, tangible thing. The process of being enlightened is not a tangible thing. Intangibles have other rules sometimes, such as subjunctive mood (saying "I wish I were somewhere else" as opposed to saying "I wish I was somewhere else." If, and wish, call you to use were, not was. I don't know if this is relevant, but in my ear, in that sentence, "to be" was extraneous.

I won't even start on whether or not I should have used "need" instead of "needs" since "us" was a collective. I have no idea.

I thought it was a tense issue. ( double meaning intended)
Doesn't the "to be" need (to be) in that sentence so that the tense is correct?
I hate grammar. Thats why I try to stick to numbers.

I don't think so, but I don't really know. It seems to me that "to be" became part of our vernacular, and we're used to hearing it that way, but the sentence is fine without it. I've been wrong before, though. (shhhhh)

For Christmas, we gave my son a son a shirt that said something like "The English Language - cobbled together by three blind men with a German dictionary". :D

:eyebrow: German terrorists? :3eye:

The car needs to be cleaned.
The car needs cleaning.

The car needs cleaned. :eyebrow::headshake