Knee-jerk response to attempted plane bomb

inforfun

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

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

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

ei.sdraob

Notice how the potential terrorist was apprehended by passengers

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

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


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

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

silverharp

RedPlanet wrote: »

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

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






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

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

Buffy the bitch

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

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

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

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

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PLIIM

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You missed a bit

PLIIM

aurelius79 wrote: »

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

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

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

Pushtrak

silverharp wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Scofflaw

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

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

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa

aurelius79 wrote: »

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

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

vinylbomb

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

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

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


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

vinylbomb

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

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

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

Pushtrak

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

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

donkey balls

Pushtrak wrote: »

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

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

Mahatma coat

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

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

RedPlanet

vinylbomb wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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