We Have Our Underwear Bomber
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be bomber trying
to smuggle explosives on board a plane in their underwear. Reid’s attempt
led to widespread inspections of shoes—would everybody now have to suffer
full-body searches?
<http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
religionofpeas
I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
to bits at customs check in.
Sailor Sam
> On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> I think it was Bruce Schneier who wondered, at the time shoe-bomber Richard
>> Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be bomber trying
>> led to widespread inspections of shoes�would everybody now have to suffer
>> full-body searches?
>>
>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
>
> I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
> do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
> to bits at customs check in.
<obvious>
Because people are more scared of flying (now) than they would ever be
using the customs check in
</obvious>
Terrorism, is about terror, putting fear into the general public.
religionofpeas
> religionofpeas wrote:
> > On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> I think it was Bruce Schneier who wondered, at the time shoe-bomber Richard
> >> Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be bomber trying
> >> led to widespread inspections of shoes would everybody now have to suffer
> >> full-body searches?
>
> >> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
>
> > I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
> > do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
> > to bits at customs check in.
>
> <obvious>
> Because people are more scared of flying (now) than they would ever be
> using the customs check in
> </obvious>
>
> Terrorism, is about terror, putting fear into the general public.
Well, it would be much easier to just homicide bomb the airport
terminal rather than all the hassle of trying to get onto the plane.
The fear factor would be just as great, in fact probably even more so.
It would also increase security costs for the dirty Kuffar, which
would have to be a plus for any aspiring Jihadist.
Sailor Sam
Ah, no.
religionofpeas
> On , , Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:26:21 -0800 (PST), Re: We Have Our Underwear Bomber,
> Where have you been since 1970?
>
> --
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.
It's just a fashion trend, which one day may be past its use-by-date.
Next year, because of the practicalities, it might be simply walking
into a downtown terminal with a few AK47's and some hand grenades.
John Cawston
> On Dec 28, 5:46 pm, Br. Scooter <br.scoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On , , Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:26:21 -0800 (PST), Re: We Have Our Underwear Bomber,
>>
>> religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>> I think it was Bruce Schneier who wondered, at the time shoe-bomber Richard
>>>> Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be bomber trying
>>>> led to widespread inspections of shoes�would everybody now have to suffer
>>>> full-body searches?
>>>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
>>> I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
>>> do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
>>> to bits at customs check in.
>> The thrill of blowing up a plane is much better than blowing up customs.
>> Where have you been since 1970?
>>
>> --
>> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
>> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
>> Anatole France.
>
> It's just a fashion trend, which one day may be past its use-by-date.
> Next year, because of the practicalities, it might be simply walking
> into a downtown terminal with a few AK47's and some hand grenades.
Which was the modus operandi of the Japanese Red Army in the
attack on the then Lod airport.
JC
Apteryx
> On Dec 28, 5:46 pm, Br. Scooter <br.scoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On , , Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:26:21 -0800 (PST), Re: We Have Our Underwear Bomber,
>>
>> religionofpeas <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>> I think it was Bruce Schneier who wondered, at the time shoe-bomber Richard
>>>> Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be bomber trying
>>>> led to widespread inspections of shoes�would everybody now have to suffer
>>>> full-body searches?
>>>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
>>> I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
>>> do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
>>> to bits at customs check in.
>> The thrill of blowing up a plane is much better than blowing up customs.
>> Where have you been since 1970?
>>
>> --
>> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
>> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
>> Anatole France.
>
> It's just a fashion trend, which one day may be past its use-by-date.
> Next year, because of the practicalities, it might be simply walking
> into a downtown terminal with a few AK47's and some hand grenades.
The focus on air travel seems to be a distinguishing feature of Islamic
terrorism. Posibly because they think that if they could stop air
travel, it would substantially reduce the influence of the West on their
own countries.
I hesitate to give people ideas (ever since I posted online after the
1998 Embassy bombings that if these groups had willing suicide bombers
available to them, the most effective way to use them - at that time -
would be to hijack an airliner and crash it into a skyscraper in New
York), but everything connected with air travel now has high security
surrounding it. If all they wanted to do was to hurt the West, they
would do better to follow the example of Western terrorists and
nutcases, and attack schools, shopping malls and workplaces, which
generally have lower security than anything connected with air travel.
It does seem that has the smarter Islamic terrorists have already been
moving in that direction anyway - eg, the 2008 Mumbai attack. The
continuing attacks on air travel looks more like the actions of lone
nutcases with a fixation on that form of attack.
Apteryx
Lyndon Watson
> I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
> do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
> to bits at customs check in.
Wouldn't have done a hell of a lot of damage to Detroit. Blowing up a
few people in an airport doesn't compare with wiping out an aircraft
and a hunk of a city.
LW
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> The focus on air travel seems to be a distinguishing feature of Islamic
> terrorism. Posibly because they think that if they could stop air
> travel, it would substantially reduce the influence of the West on their
> own countries.
Interesting theory, but so obviously at odds with the facts.
It’s the mass media (both broadcast media and the Internet) which does more
to spread cultural values than visits by relatively sequestered tourists
could ever manage.
> If all they wanted to do was to hurt the West, they would do better to
> follow the example of Western terrorists and nutcases, and attack schools,
> shopping malls and workplaces, which generally have lower security than
> anything connected with air travel.
And are those “Western terrorists and nutcases” very effective?
I rest my case.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
c71691...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Lyndon Watson wrote:
> Blowing up a few people in an airport doesn't compare with wiping out an
> aircraft and a hunk of a city.
When was the last time an aircraft wiped out a “hunk of a city”?
Fred
"religionofpeas" <merd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:85d5de2e-bcb3-4573...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Or why not an ocean liner? A lot easier to get a bomb aboard and you could
get 2000 plus in one hit.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Or why not an ocean liner? A lot easier to get a bomb aboard and you could
> get 2000 plus in one hit.
Why stop there? Why not an entire city? You could get a million or more in
one hit. Or even a whole country?
Spot the stupidity, folks...
Lyndon Watson
> Or why not an ocean liner? A lot easier to get a bomb aboard and you could
> get 2000 plus in one hit.
I've thought about that. Perhaps ships just aren't sexy enough any
more, but I suspect that part of attraction in bringing down an
airliner is the damage you can do on the ground. As in this case
where Detroit was apparently targeted, though I can imagine more
attractive targets than that.
LW
John Cawston
Ironically Detroit would provide nearly the largest target of
Muslims living in the US.
JC
>
> LW
Katipo
"Fred" <r...@parachute.net.nz> wrote in message
news:hhgte4$6ch$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "religionofpeas" <merd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:85d5de2e-bcb3-4573...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> I think it was Bruce Schneier who wondered, at the time shoe-bomber
>> Richard
>> Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be bomber
>> trying
>> to smuggle explosives on board a plane in their underwear. Reid's attempt
>> full-body searches?
>>
>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
>
> I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
> do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
> to bits at customs check in.
>
> Or why not an ocean liner? A lot easier to get a bomb aboard and you could
> get 2000 plus in one hit.
>
The whole undie-bomber thing sounds suspiciously like an elaborate hoax
perpetrated by US intelligence services to help force wider acceptance of
those rediculous and unnessecary full body scanners.
In my opinion those things are a disgusting invasion of privacy and I
strongly urge anyone asked to step into one to steadfastly refuse.
/\(**)/\
Lyndon Watson
> > "religionofpeas" <merdek...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> to smuggle explosives on board a plane in their underwear. Reid's attempt
> >> led to widespread inspections of shoes-would everybody now have to suffer
> >> full-body searches?
>
> perpetrated by US intelligence services to help force wider acceptance of
> those rediculous and unnessecary full body scanners.
>
> In my opinion those things are a disgusting invasion of privacy and I
> strongly urge anyone asked to step into one to steadfastly refuse.
Fine, if you don't want to fly . . . .
LW
Katipo
"Lyndon Watson" <te...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:73f3db2b-a18f-4792...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
No nessecarily. At least in some countries you can opt for a pat down search
instead.
However, I think it would be wise, when booking your flights, to ensure your
airfare will be refunded, if you are denied access to the aircraft for
refusing to pose for this pornography.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> The whole undie-bomber thing sounds suspiciously like an elaborate hoax
> perpetrated by US intelligence services to help force wider acceptance of
> those rediculous and unnessecary full body scanners.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
In this case, it’s really a case of collective or institutional stupidity
rather than individual stupidity; those responsible for security have to be
seen to be doing something, otherwise people will wonder whether they
deserve to be in those jobs. So they cover their arses by bringing in
measures that look like they will block obvious threats. Or at least threats
that seem obvious to those who watch too many Hollywood movies.
Really, all these measures are a waste of time. All the scanning and
searching and no-fly lists to date didn’t prevent the Underwear Bomber from
getting on that plane. And no amount of “tightening” them up will stop the
next one. Any security system is only as strong as its weakest point, after
all. What DID work was the passengers noticing something was wrong, and
stopping him.
As Bruce Schneier has pointed out, that’s one of just two security
developments that have made a real difference in the last decade (the other
being the strengthening of cockpit doors). All else is mere “security
theatre”—a show to soothe the nervous punters’ nerves, even if they piss the
hell out of the rest of us.
John Cawston
Unfortunately for all fliers no one is prepared to do the
obvious, ie, profiling with all its inherent potential unfairness.
I note that the Underpants Bomber is the fourth President of a
university Islamic Society to be arrested on terrorist related
charges in the last three years.
JC
Gib Bogle
Time to revive an idea I floated soon after 9/11. Everybody should go
naked aboard the plane. Some nit-pickers claimed to see flaws in that
scheme, so I've revised it. Everybody strips and dons an
airline-supplied gown.
I have more ideas! Instead of seating, you get a sleeping tube. This
would make those long flights easier to bear, and also remove the risk
of thrombosis.
Gib Bogle
> On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> I think it was Bruce Schneier who wondered, at the time shoe-bomber Richard
>> Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be bomber trying
>> led to widespread inspections of shoes�would everybody now have to suffer
>> full-body searches?
>>
>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
>
> I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
> do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
> to bits at customs check in.
I like the way you think.
Gib Bogle
> "religionofpeas" <merd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:85d5de2e-bcb3-4573...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 1:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> I think it was Bruce Schneier who wondered, at the time shoe-bomber
>> Richard
>> Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be bomber
>> trying
>> led to widespread inspections of shoes�would everybody now have to suffer
>> full-body searches?
>>
>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
>
> I don't know why they bother trying to get onto the plane. They could
> do just as much damage, perhaps even more damage, blasting themselves
> to bits at customs check in.
>
> Or why not an ocean liner? A lot easier to get a bomb aboard and you could
> get 2000 plus in one hit.
>
>
Harder to sink - need a pretty big bomb.
Gib Bogle
At least we should demand a say in who carries out the body search. ;-)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Everybody should go naked aboard the plane.
Ssh, nobody tell him about this
<http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/ass_bomber.html> ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Unfortunately for all fliers no one is prepared to do the
> obvious, ie, profiling with all its inherent potential unfairness.
Profiling doesn’t work
<http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/racial_profilin.html>.
John Cawston
He's talking racial profiling, not security profiling like that
done in Israel and on El Al. The system is geared to talking to
virtually every traveler.. thats not counting the security work
that goes on before the traveler gets into the concourse.
JC
religionofpeas
Yes, Israeli's are experts at it. We should learn from them.
Lyndon Watson
> However, I think it would be wise, when booking your flights, to ensure your
> airfare will be refunded, if you are denied access to the aircraft for
> refusing to pose for this pornography.
Pornography? In my case, more like a horror film.
LW
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message <hhjeb2$pi6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Cawston wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately for all fliers no one is prepared to do the
>>> obvious, ie, profiling with all its inherent potential unfairness.
>>
>> Profiling doesn’t work
>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/racial_profilin.html>.
>
> He's talking racial profiling, not security profiling like that
> done in Israel and on El Al.
Spot the security n00b.
Katipo
>LW
I know what you mean. NZ.General's favourite arachnid revealed in all his
glory is not a pretty site either.
John Cawston
> In message <hhjk5o$6lo$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Cawston wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message <hhjeb2$pi6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Cawston wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately for all fliers no one is prepared to do the
>>>> obvious, ie, profiling with all its inherent potential unfairness.
>>> Profiling doesn’t work
>>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/02/racial_profilin.html>.
>> He's talking racial profiling, not security profiling like that
>> done in Israel and on El Al.
>
> Spot the security n00b.
I'm quoting a fellow called Bruce Schneier.. ever heard of him?
"Bruce Schneier: I don't think it's possible. The Israelis rely
on a system of individual attention -- interviews, background
checks, and so on -- that simply can't be replicated on the scale
required for America."
JC
Brian Dooley
Checking foreskins won't help.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Katipo
"Gib Bogle" <bo...@ihug.too.much.spam.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hhjg0d$6ft$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> I think it was Bruce Schneier who wondered, at the time shoe-bomber
>> Richard Reid was caught, what the consequences would be of a would-be
>> bomber trying to smuggle explosives on board a plane in their underwear.
>>
>> <http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/separating_expl.html>
>
> Time to revive an idea I floated soon after 9/11. Everybody should go
> naked aboard the plane. Some nit-pickers claimed to see flaws in that
> scheme, so I've revised it. Everybody strips and dons an airline-supplied
> gown.
>
If the airlines will accept my fat belly as hand luggage, naked flying beats
those cancer causing full body scanners (don't be surprised if your scan pic
appears on a porn site) any day! :)
bugalugs
Someones got cancer from one of these machines already. Tell me more !
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
processing the surveillance data
<http://techdirt.com/articles/20100108/0305177669.shtml>. And people are
clamouring for MORE surveillance, when they are already unable to cope with
the amount being done?