Air terror solutions
Frogwatch
Knowing quite a bit about various sensing systems for elements and
chemicals, I despair of anybody producing any real solution in the
near term (except maybe trained dogs).
However, I would like to see a discussion of various possibilities.
I would also like to see a discussion of how to "profile" in a way
that causes the fewest problems but results in the highest success.
Of course said discussion should not provide sufficient detail to
potential terrorists to be useful.
I once went to a chemical sensor conference and learned that some dogs
can be trained to recognize a scent from a SINGLE ATOM, meaning that
the positive response was produced by the dog responding to a single
atom or molecule reaching his nose. I am not sure I believe this and
so far artificial "noses" cannot get anywhere near duplicating this.
I wonder if it would be possible to produce an artificial dog's nose
with a combination of actual biological tissue and an electronic
neural network that could "learn".
La N
Dogs are being trained to sniff out cancer cells in people's bodies.
Amazing animals with great sensory receptors. I don't know if one could
train a machine to replicate that, but who knows?
- nilita
Jack Linthicum
What single atom has a scent?
Frogwatch
wrote:
Jack: I tried to be clear about this. The dogs response was to what
was calculated to be a single atom reaching his nose.
Jack Linthicum
Still which ? By the way the Undiebomber got his name because he hid
the explosive in his underwear.
Arved Sandstrom
With respect to profiling, one suggestion I have as part of a more
complete solution is the administration of an automated screening
questionnaire to all prospective passengers. The questionnaire is run by
an expert system based upon what trained security personnel already do
(like El Al staff), must be done ahead of time, and is timed. The
questionnaire changes enough that there is no adequate way to prepare
for it. People taking the questionnaire are expected to have all their
documentation at hand.
People taking the questionnaire must do so at an approved testing
centre, or if they wish to do the exam at an arbitrary computer, must
have a quality webcam plus download and install an approved facial
recognition program that matches the image of the person taking the exam
to the electronic passport picture held by authorities.
Obviously not everyone is going to be able to do this, so you're always
going to have completely human-based vetting. I suggest in this case,
since we'd be looking to beef up security staff, that passengers
unwilling to conform to the automated process be surcharged.
AHS
La N
Maybe the airlines could hire *this* guy (watch the video). Believe it or
not this story has been in all the UK papers this past week ... :)
Frogwatch
Reading through the Wiki page about "Olfaction" (smell) causes my eyes
to glaze over, too much biology for me. However, it says bloodhounds
have a sense of smell 10-100 million times that of a human and bears
are about 7X as acute as bloodhounds.
William Black
> However, I would like to see a discussion of various possibilities.
> I would also like to see a discussion of how to "profile" in a way
> that causes the fewest problems but results in the highest success.
> Of course said discussion should not provide sufficient detail to
> potential terrorists to be useful.
Filtering by ethnicity is stupid, you're looking at a third of the
world's population.
Having two (or probably more) lists is silly.
The UK Home Secretary says the UK has one list, it is made up of the
people who aren't allowed a visa...
There's obviously another one with domestic (and EC) nuisances on it
because they can't be denied entry, but that one will be a secret.
Filtering on religion is doomed to failure.
Terrorists come in a variety of religions, the inventors of the
suicide bomb were Hindu, the IRA is Catholic.
Physiological signs?
How do you measure adrenalin and rate of sweating?
I know people who need three large gins inside them before they'll even
get on an aeroplane.
Letting people through who look ok?
Well any system that allows white men in late middle age to avoid delays
is to be encouraged...
But there aren't enough of us to make the exception relevant.
Filtering by
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Alan Lothian
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> With respect to profiling, one suggestion I have as part of a more
> complete solution is the administration of an automated screening
> questionnaire to all prospective passengers. The questionnaire is run by
> an expert system based upon what trained security personnel already do
> (like El Al staff),
Makes sense to me. I was the one who brought up El Al, who actually do
know what they're doing, even if they are a bunch of fascist,
imperialist etc etc etc. Insert anti-Zionist term of abuse, whatever.
But it really takes time and resources, even with your automated
system. And in the West, airline security is just crawling with
underpaid, incompetent jobsworths. It still takes passenger time, but
little in the way of "resources". Easier just to confiscate grandma's
nose tweezers, and, more to the point, my Swiss Army Knife. I'll tell
you something about El Al, though, Arved: the security is horrible,
intrusive, even insulting, and most assuredly very annoying. But after
you're through it, you feel secure. Because you bloody well are.
Amusing thought would be to make everyone who, ah, qualified, fly in
Circumcized Class. No, of course I'm not serious. But then again....
Happy New Year to all: must crash out a while to prepare for the local
"reveillon".
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Mark Borgerson
@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, ohar...@mindspring.com says...
gases and some ionized molecules exist as single atoms. How would
you train a dog to recogize that a nitrogen atom came from an
explosive?
Now, a single molecule recognition for some organic chemicals might
be possible---and even useful. It wouldn't be very helpful if
the airport was within a few miles of an explosives factory or
armory, though.
Mark Borgerson
Frogwatch
> In article <01e0f349-8d86-4d22-add6-be3eff275955
Mark: You are correct, it is "molecule".
Mark Borgerson
1a3eb3...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, ohar...@mindspring.com
says...
ability to sense a few molecules---it is the ability to determine
critical levels that indicate a person is either carrying explosives
or has handled them recently. Just sniffing the air may not
be enough. After all, 5 Marines on their way home from
Afghanistan might contribute a few hundred thousand TNT molecules to
the air in the waiting room!
Mark Borgerson
Arved Sandstrom
> In article <oG6%m.58042$Db2.23432@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
> <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> With respect to profiling, one suggestion I have as part of a more
>> complete solution is the administration of an automated screening
>> questionnaire to all prospective passengers. The questionnaire is run by
>> an expert system based upon what trained security personnel already do
>> (like El Al staff),
>
> Makes sense to me. I was the one who brought up El Al, who actually do
> know what they're doing, even if they are a bunch of fascist,
> imperialist etc etc etc. Insert anti-Zionist term of abuse, whatever.
>
> But it really takes time and resources, even with your automated
> system. And in the West, airline security is just crawling with
> underpaid, incompetent jobsworths. It still takes passenger time, but
> little in the way of "resources". Easier just to confiscate grandma's
> nose tweezers, and, more to the point, my Swiss Army Knife. I'll tell
> you something about El Al, though, Arved: the security is horrible,
> intrusive, even insulting, and most assuredly very annoying. But after
> you're through it, you feel secure. Because you bloody well are.
>
> Amusing thought would be to make everyone who, ah, qualified, fly in
> Circumcized Class. No, of course I'm not serious. But then again....
>
> Happy New Year to all: must crash out a while to prepare for the local
> "reveillon".
>
can't afford a human-based application of El Al security principles to
_huge_ airlines, because of the passenger volume. Whatever extra
screening you do along these lines has to happen on *passenger* time,
not airline/airport *security* time. In fact it can't even happen at the
airports.
For the most part passenger time is cheap. Even if they don't think so.
Make the passengers do more of the work involved in proving that they
are not security risks.
The expert system would be a challenge, and a large part of its
effectiveness would come from tying into databases. The availability of
the latter could be tricky, but where there's a will there's a way.
It's only an initial idea, but short of expanding airline security staff
enormously with skilled professionals, and seeing the price of an
airline ticket go up fivefold or tenfold, it's probably the only way to
do it. As William pointed out, profiling only takes you so far - El Al
does profiling themselves, but it's not the main reason for the success
of their system.
AHS
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
wrote:
The easiest way to defeat any chemical
sensor whether it be biological or
mechanical is to simply douse multiple
travelers with such molecules (either on
a particular flight or multiple
flights). After protracted searches of
these travelers finds no explosives it
is inevitable that the increasing level
of "false positives" will effectively
nuliify the sensors usefulness.
And you get the added benefit of the
disruption this causes
Alan Lothian
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The trouble with you, Arved, and I will hope you take this as a comment
from a friend, is that when everybody else is into barking goatshit or
worse, you insist on being resolutely intelligent. It will do you no
good, mark my words. But it is not unappreciated by at least a few.
> >
> That's the core idea behind my suggested automated system, that you
> can't afford a human-based application of El Al security principles to
> _huge_ airlines, because of the passenger volume.
El Al used to be typically two hours per passenger, with at least one
interrogator. They may have got more relaxed. Note: if you really want
to do harm to El AL, you start in Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion, not Heathrow.
There is, or was (they might have sorted it out and I'd be frankly
surprised if they haven't) a weakness there.
Best way to smuggle a bomb on to El Al is to disguise it as smoked
bacon. I am not kidding.
> Whatever extra
> screening you do along these lines has to happen on *passenger* time,
> not airline/airport *security* time. In fact it can't even happen at the
> airports.
If you are not going to do some sort of profiling, then confiscating
grandma's nose tweezers (big bad fierce men on smn: how many of us are
going to try to hijack an airliner with nose tweezers) is a complete
and utter waste of time, effort, energy, etc.
Actually, here's a New Year competition: hijacking an aircraft with
nose tweezers. Or nail clippers, let's keep the contest open. "Fly into
those tower blocks or I'll snip off the corner of your earlobe."
Always, always, beware jobsworths. Their bosses are worse.
>
> For the most part passenger time is cheap.
For the airlines, passenger time is cheap. I remember much happier
days, when the airlines considered passenger time expensive. But then
I'm old and feeble now. I bet you, though, that I could get my Stout
English Cudgel through one of these silly searches. And if it came to a
contest, I bet you also that I could hijack an aircraft with my Stout
English Cudgel a lot more easily than you could with your nail
clippers. Not, of course, that either us would so such a thing,
especially since these posts are being monitored by Homeland Security,
or whatever your local jobsworth job creation service is called.
> Even if they don't think so.
> Make the passengers do more of the work involved in proving that they
> are not security risks.
99.9999% of passengers are not, and never will be, security risks.
Except if they miss the sick bag in clear air turbulene. The bad guys
are not normally that hard to suss out. Neither "Farouk" nor "Richard
Reid" should have been allowed on a shopping trolley, far less a
jetliner. Jobsworths rule. There is no substitute for human
intelligence, and the one thing that worries me about your plan is that
your automated system would eliminate what little of it is left.
Quite seriously, it has crossed my mind that the ridiculous rituals at
airport "security" could be far more safely replaced by allowing other
passengers to use their common sense. "This guy is an obvious nutter".
"You can't say that. He's a brown Muslim. And how did you smuggle your
nose tweezers past Security? Up against the wall, motherfucker.""
Jobsworths. They may yet be the death of our civilization.
>
> The expert system would be a challenge, and a large part of its
> effectiveness would come from tying into databases. The availability of
> the latter could be tricky, but where there's a will there's a way.
>
> It's only an initial idea, but short of expanding airline security staff
> enormously with skilled professionals, and seeing the price of an
> airline ticket go up fivefold or tenfold,
Isn't that the idea? Carbon footprints? 20 times would be about right
for climate activists. Still, if you fly a loaded jumbo into a tower
block, you release a lot of carbon, most of it hoping to go home to its
wives, husbands or kiddies.
Smash nonsensism now. A Stout English Cudgel is my preferred method,
but there are others, and the more paths the better.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <EFd%m.58085$Db2.53198@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
>
Voting them off the island?
dott.Piergiorgio
> What single atom has a scent?
well, noses are basically chemical compound sensors Mk.I ..
I suspect that many people in France still remember to avoid opening
mustard jars in presence of elders, to give an example....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
> Amusing thought would be to make everyone who, ah, qualified, fly in
> Circumcized Class. No, of course I'm not serious. But then again....
well, seriously, I can assure that not few Hebrews can even surpass
nazis on "profiling" matters...
(I recognize that I lose here, and bow to Godwin ;D )
Iain Rae
> In article<EFd%m.58085$Db2.53198@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
> <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually, here's a New Year competition: hijacking an aircraft with
> nose tweezers. Or nail clippers, let's keep the contest open. "Fly into
> those tower blocks or I'll snip off the corner of your earlobe."
They're too obviously weapons, or following some kind of convoluted
hollywood plotline they could be used to put the aircrafts electrical
systems out of order. I would suggest a competition involving a far more
nefarious substance.....Toblerone.
At CdG some years ago I had an opened tube of Toblerone confiscated as a
security risk[*]. I'm not sure why toblerone should be considered such a
security risk but I'm open to suggestions as to how you take over an
airliner with a partly eaten bar of the stuff. All I can think of is
either wielding the bar and shouting "this plane goes to CUBA or anyone
with a nut allergy gets it". Or the more sophisticated version: target
an aircrew staff who has a nut allergy and at the appropriate time
threated then with chocolate coated death if control of the aircraft
isn't handed over.
So Alan, If you're happy to switch to a swiss chocolate themed
competition I'll get a bar of the stuff delivered to whoever you judge
to come up with the best way to take over an airliner using toblerone.
[*]I was allowed to carry on an UNOPENED tube of toblerone. Through
several years of trial and error I've come up with a scheme to convert
bars of this stuff from the sealed to the unsealed state ACTUALLY ON THE
PLANE. This negates all the anti toblerone security in place and I'm
planning on giving a presentation at the upcoming meeting on Yemen
proposed by our own glorious dear leader Gordon himself.
Alan Lothian
<ia...@laeg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/01/10 17:40, Alan Lothian wrote:
> > In article<EFd%m.58085$Db2.53198@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
> > <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Actually, here's a New Year competition: hijacking an aircraft with
> > nose tweezers. Or nail clippers, let's keep the contest open. "Fly into
> > those tower blocks or I'll snip off the corner of your earlobe."
>
> They're too obviously weapons, or following some kind of convoluted
> hollywood plotline they could be used to put the aircrafts electrical
> systems out of order. I would suggest a competition involving a far more
> nefarious substance.....Toblerone.
Tolblerone terrorism is a major problem in Europe. Ask any security
jobsworth: he'll explain it to you. Must admit you've opened up the
contest more than somewhat.
<snippaggio of ludicrous but entirely believable story>
>
> So Alan, If you're happy to switch to a swiss chocolate themed
> competition I'll get a bar of the stuff delivered to whoever you judge
> to come up with the best way to take over an airliner using toblerone.
Right. Here's the January competition, then. The most implausible but
just-about-possible way to hijack an airliner. Getting your Toblerone
confiscated won't do it, Ian. You have to explain its use. And you're
not allowed to wear a burqa. We have to have *some* rules. And since
this is essentially a boys' game, you are banned from using Tampax, a
potentially devastating weapon.
>
>
> [*]I was allowed to carry on an UNOPENED tube of toblerone. Through
> several years of trial and error I've come up with a scheme to convert
> bars of this stuff from the sealed to the unsealed state ACTUALLY ON THE
> PLANE. This negates all the anti toblerone security in place and I'm
> planning on giving a presentation at the upcoming meeting on Yemen
> proposed by our own glorious dear leader Gordon himself.
I await your competition entry with interest. I've already worked out a
nifty trick with nose tweezers, but I'm keeping it to myself for the
moment. And I admit my cunning plan could be circumvented by a
counterattack from a Toblerone-armed passenger. And if Mars Bars come
into it, I haven't a hope in hell.
Alan Lothian
dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Alan Lothian ha scritto:
>
> > Amusing thought would be to make everyone who, ah, qualified, fly in
> > Circumcized Class. No, of course I'm not serious. But then again....
>
> well, seriously, I can assure that not few Hebrews can even surpass
> nazis on "profiling" matters...
>
> (I recognize that I lose here, and bow to Godwin ;D )
We haven't quite reached the Godwin stage (you can see it coming, I
admit) but to be serious for a moment, have you ever flown El Al?
Andrew Chaplin
alanl...@mac.com:
> In article <d%H%m.74679$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>
>> Alan Lothian ha scritto:
>>
>> > Amusing thought would be to make everyone who, ah, qualified, fly in
>> > Circumcized Class. No, of course I'm not serious. But then again....
>>
>> well, seriously, I can assure that not few Hebrews can even surpass
>> nazis on "profiling" matters...
>>
>> (I recognize that I lose here, and bow to Godwin ;D )
>
> We haven't quite reached the Godwin stage (you can see it coming, I
> admit) but to be serious for a moment, have you ever flown El Al?
I have--"Nobody expects the Hebrew Inquisition!" I will not fly El Al again
unless sandbagged.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Alan Lothian
Chaplin <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in news:030120101158584723%
> alanl...@mac.com:
<snippaggio>
> > We haven't quite reached the Godwin stage (you can see it coming, I
> > admit) but to be serious for a moment, have you ever flown El Al?
>
> I have--"Nobody expects the Hebrew Inquisition!" I will not fly El Al again
> unless sandbagged.
I understand. "Why are you flying to Israel? Who'll vouch for you? We
don't believe a word you say. What have you got in your pockets? Yes, I
know we checked them out, but what have you*still* got in your
pockets?"
For about two hours.
But at the end of it you do feel secure, which is more than can be said
after passing jobsworth security in the West and surrendering your
nose-tweezers. (Actually, I have never possessed nose-tweezers, but you
know what I mean.) I am by no means sure that I *like* Israel, but I
certainly respect the place. Which probably suits Israelis fine.
Arved Sandstrom
> In article <6EO%m.22582$p33....@newsfe20.ams2>, Iain Rae
> <ia...@laeg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> So Alan, If you're happy to switch to a swiss chocolate themed
>> competition I'll get a bar of the stuff delivered to whoever you judge
>> to come up with the best way to take over an airliner using toblerone.
>
> Right. Here's the January competition, then. The most implausible but
> just-about-possible way to hijack an airliner. Getting your Toblerone
> confiscated won't do it, Ian. You have to explain its use. And you're
> not allowed to wear a burqa. We have to have *some* rules. And since
> this is essentially a boys' game, you are banned from using Tampax, a
> potentially devastating weapon.
[ SNIP ]
When all is said and done, who needs weapons? Get enough very fit, very
strong dudes onto the plane, all with combat martial arts training, and
you're going to be able to control a plane. A couple of air marshals
would likely take down some of the attackers, and then get pulverized.
Resisting passengers wouldn't get shot or cut, they'd just get broken up.
But I suspect airline security might look askance at a entire madrassah
muay thai team wanting to fly on the same plane.
AHS
Andrew Chaplin
> In article <Xns9CF5514903...@216.196.109.144>, Andrew
> Chaplin <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote in news:030120101158584723%
>> alanl...@mac.com:
>
>
> <snippaggio>
>
>> > We haven't quite reached the Godwin stage (you can see it coming, I
>> > admit) but to be serious for a moment, have you ever flown El Al?
>>
>> I have--"Nobody expects the Hebrew Inquisition!" I will not fly El Al
>> again unless sandbagged.
>
> I understand. "Why are you flying to Israel? Who'll vouch for you? We
> don't believe a word you say. What have you got in your pockets? Yes,
> I know we checked them out, but what have you*still* got in your
> pockets?"
>
> For about two hours.
That's it! In my case, I even let them see the travel order and posting
message sending me to the Canadian contingent of UNTSO, but they had a
hard time decyphering those. A U.S. Army colleague was the only man I
know to have ever got away with a smartarse approach to El Al security:
"Why are you traveling to Israel?" "Because I have to." "What do you mean
by that?" "My government is making me." Etc.
> But at the end of it you do feel secure, which is more than can be
> said after passing jobsworth security in the West and surrendering
> your nose-tweezers. (Actually, I have never possessed nose-tweezers,
> but you know what I mean.) I am by no means sure that I *like* Israel,
> but I certainly respect the place. Which probably suits Israelis fine.
In 2002, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was to travel to
Boston to spawn (visit the International Seafood Show) and thence to the
Atlantic provinces, so I chartered a small aircraft for this purpose. The
Ottawa airport was under rennovation at the time, so we were fed down a
long hallway of hoardings to a temporary gate where our aircraft awaited
us (usually we would have gone through Shell's Avitat facility, and it
had little in the way of security for private charters). There was an
expedient screening station set up and security personnel from
"Jobsworthy Canada" to clear us. In the luggage that was to go into the
hold was my combination tool (a purple Leatherman Juice that I carry
almost everywhere--it was their only model with a corkscrew); spotting it
on the x-ray, they asked me to open the bag and they then extracted it.
They handed it to the pilot, who looked nonplussed. We walked out onto
the tarmac to board the aircraft and the pilot handed it back to me in
full view of the screeners. I did not hijack the aircraft nor threaten
any of the committee's members with it, even if they deserved it.
dott.Piergiorgio
> We haven't quite reached the Godwin stage (you can see it coming, I
> admit) but to be serious for a moment, have you ever flown El Al?
No, but relatives by the "correct" side of the family has done ;) and
there of course was some tales :)
dott.Piergiorgio
>> We haven't quite reached the Godwin stage (you can see it coming, I
>> admit) but to be serious for a moment, have you ever flown El Al?
>
> I have--"Nobody expects the Hebrew Inquisition!" I will not fly El Al again
> unless sandbagged.
Seriously, sometimes I wonder if they do more "Inquisition" to people
with Arabic traits or people, well, of fair complexion, blue eyes and
blonde hairs... (eye for eye etc, I'm fairly sure that isn't so uncommon
to give "aryan" people some money back at airport gate, road controls &
like (I'm fairly sure that for a German, being thoroughly questioned on
their grandfathers and/or father under .il jurisdiction should be a
rather shivering experience....)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. piergiorgio
dott.Piergiorgio
> I understand. "Why are you flying to Israel? Who'll vouch for you? We
> don't believe a word you say. What have you got in your pockets? Yes, I
> know we checked them out, but what have you*still* got in your
> pockets?"
>
> For about two hours.
>
> But at the end of it you do feel secure, which is more than can be said
> after passing jobsworth security in the West and surrendering your
> nose-tweezers. (Actually, I have never possessed nose-tweezers, but you
> know what I mean.) I am by no means sure that I *like* Israel, but I
> certainly respect the place. Which probably suits Israelis fine.
side question re. the reply to Mr. Chaplin, how are (or was back then)
your hairs & eyes ?
Alan Lothian
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Lothian wrote:
> > In article <6EO%m.22582$p33....@newsfe20.ams2>, Iain Rae
> > <ia...@laeg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
>
> >> So Alan, If you're happy to switch to a swiss chocolate themed
> >> competition I'll get a bar of the stuff delivered to whoever you judge
> >> to come up with the best way to take over an airliner using toblerone.
> >
> > Right. Here's the January competition, then. The most implausible but
> > just-about-possible way to hijack an airliner. Getting your Toblerone
> > confiscated won't do it, Ian. You have to explain its use. And you're
> > not allowed to wear a burqa. We have to have *some* rules. And since
> > this is essentially a boys' game, you are banned from using Tampax, a
> > potentially devastating weapon.
> [ SNIP ]
>
> When all is said and done, who needs weapons? Get enough very fit, very
> strong dudes onto the plane, all with combat martial arts training, and
> you're going to be able to control a plane. A couple of air marshals
> would likely take down some of the attackers, and then get pulverized.
> Resisting passengers wouldn't get shot or cut, they'd just get broken up.
Arved, you are spoiling all the fun. I'm sure you're right, though.
IIRC a year or two back the most effective, ready-use weapon was agreed
here to be a tightly-rollled inflight magazine but I stand, as always,
subject to correction.
>
> But I suspect airline security might look askance at a entire madrassah
> muay thai team wanting to fly on the same plane.
Not good at the physical fitness bit, though, them madrassah chaps.
Spend all their energies beating up on their womenfolk and banging
their foreheads on the floor in prayer.
But your combat squad ought to spend a couple of weeks in the woods
growing their hair long and communing with nature. An unnecessary
precaution, really: what security Jobsworth is going to notice 24
superfit crewcut young men? He'll just make sure their nose-tweezers
are properly confiscated. All to the good if the 24 superfits are
white, too: that way all sorts of non racial profiling boxes get
ticked. "I'm going to have to take those nose-tweezers from you."
So what are we going to do with our airliner? Having no desire for mass
murder myself (indeed, my membership of the Kirk of Scotland absolutely
precludes it; I'd be in terrible trouble with my Minister) I think we
should just fly it somewhere we can sell it for cash. We can always
file off the serial numbers and the new owners can deal with the paint
job.
Passengers whose journeys have been unfortunately interrupted can have
a hundred bucks or so apiece, and free drinks from the trolley. Let
none call me the least generous of men.
William Hamblen
wrote:
>... and banging their foreheads on the floor in prayer.
I always thought that explained a lot.
Bud
tankfixer
says...
> An unnecessary precaution, really: what security Jobsworth is going to
> notice 24 superfit crewcut young men?
>
My unit did a movement by commercial air once and we just had to laugh
when Top called out in the terminal,
"Don't do anything to stand out"
at 100 some fit young men and women standing over two dufflebags each...
Nah, we didn't stand out at all...
Alan Lothian
dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
Hair dark (except for bald patches) and standing up aggressively. Eyes
bloodshot, dripping with rage. Me, the most liberal and tolerant of
men. But El Al security is secure. Bastards. Not at all nice. First
time I flew with them was in the mid-80s, very shortly after the Rome
Airport massacre. Mad bad bastards fired automatic weapons for about 25
seconds, killing assorted innocents, before Israeli El Al chap got his
pistol out from under his desk and started shooting them thoroughly
dead. Carabinieri useless, running around in circles, screaming and
shouting and discharging automatic weapons more or less at random. V.
nasty but by no means unprovoked Israeli chap breathes deeply and takes
aim again. Always fire on the outbreath, my old instructor taught me.
I'm lousy with a pistol, though. I suppose I could always hit you with
the thing. Not you personally, Pigi.
Paul J. Adam
<alanl...@mac.com> writes
>Always fire on the outbreath, my old instructor taught me.
>I'm lousy with a pistol, though. I suppose I could always hit you with
>the thing. Not you personally, Pigi.
I shot Practical Pistol with folk who were good enough to make money
from it. It's interesting to see the detrimental effect that merely
being timed, and having to move through the course without a safety
problem, inflicts on your shooting.
Never got DQed and never missed completely, but at leisure I could shoot
pretty well (would have had pistol and rifle marksman badges in the
Army, if they'd existed in 1996): working around Practical courses I
thoroughly enjoyed myself but was just about adequate...
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Arved Sandstrom
as you found out...and I found out. :-) Right up until I got out of the
Corps in '92 it wasn't all that common for Marine units to shoot on
anything other than KD, for qualification. It just so happened that some
of the officers and senior NCOs in the units I served with had different
ideas, and sort of anticipated the marksmanship changes that were to
come somewhat later. So we shot at some of the US Army moving/pop-up
target ranges, and also went through some jury-rigged "run with gas
masks" shooting drills on KD ranges.
I found out one thing real quick: a person can be an Expert rifle shot
on KD, coolly hitting the bullseye prone at 500 yards time and time
again...and have trouble reliably hitting the target kneeling from 200
yards after running a hundred yards in a gas mask. And what's closer to
real combat? Leaving out the gas mask part - that was just to further
make the point.
That's not to say that the KD range type of shooting is useless. It's
not. But if that's all you practise you'll be very unpleasantly
surprised in real life.
AHS
Alan Lothian
<mai...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <030120102219194361%alanl...@mac.com>, Alan Lothian
> <alanl...@mac.com> writes
> >Always fire on the outbreath, my old instructor taught me.
> >I'm lousy with a pistol, though. I suppose I could always hit you with
> >the thing. Not you personally, Pigi.
>
> I shot Practical Pistol with folk who were good enough to make money
> from it. It's interesting to see the detrimental effect that merely
> being timed, and having to move through the course without a safety
> problem, inflicts on your shooting.
I claim none, zero, nada, zilch expertise in pistol shooting of any
sort. Horrible great heavy things that go loudly bang and damned near
break your wrist. I dare say at about three feet I could be quite
dangerous with one of them, but that's it. But another but...
>
> Never got DQed and never missed completely, but at leisure I could shoot
> pretty well (would have had pistol and rifle marksman badges in the
> Army, if they'd existed in 1996): working around Practical courses I
> thoroughly enjoyed myself but was just about adequate...
I got the rifle stuff no trouble when I was a kid. Pistols, now. Had an
entirely illegal .22 airpistol (in Italy) with which I shot the
occasional rat. Much better than the .177. (although not, perhaps, from
the rat's point of view. I got very cross when the buggers stole my
nice red woollen scarf, knitted by a woman I was very fond of. Got one
of them with a broomhandle, and did a certain amount of collateral
damage to a perfectly pleasant sitting room trying to get another) Only
way I could hit anything with the pistol, though, was straight-arm,
fully outstretched. My old pal, Scottish champion with a .45 before
these things were banned, disapproved of this method. Me, I'm out of it
now: I can barely see enough to type silly posts on UseNet. I would,
though, value your opinion.
A friend, at the same period, used a 12 bore to go for rats. Indoors.
Bad news for rats, but collateral damage problem far from trivial.
Still, rats can be a real nuisance, and cats are worthless against
them. Terriers, that's what you need. Blasting off a couple of 12 bore
barrels is pretty damned stupid, if you think about it. Ends rat, mind
you, have to grant that much. Fucking great holes in wall, though,
which you then have to fix before more rats come through them.
David E. Powell
recent attacker was wearing? Just sweep everyone with a chemical
sniffer.
Kerryn Offord
Do these chemical sniffers work by detecting nitrates?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Richard Casady
<ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Do these chemical sniffers work by detecting nitrates?
They plain don't work. In any case, that leaves chlorates,
perchlorates,permangenates
Casady
Andrew Chaplin
news:zB50n.75565$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
At the time, I looked Celtish, i.e. fair skin with some freckling, brown
hair (the red and blonde were beginning to turn grey) ginger moustache,
blue eyes, 180 cm, 80-ish Kg. I could pass for an Albertan, but not an
Arab.
Me in duck hunters' rig not long before I deployed:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=835046&l=b71d5406a2&id=679811265.
La N
> "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote
>
> At the time, I looked Celtish, i.e. fair skin with some freckling,
> brown hair (the red and blonde were beginning to turn grey) ginger
> moustache, blue eyes, 180 cm, 80-ish Kg. I could pass for an
> Albertan, but not an Arab.
> Me in duck hunters' rig not long before I deployed:
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=835046&l=b71d5406a2&id=679811265.
Great photos! But, I don't see any baby pictures of you ... there must be
one in there somewhere ...;>
- nil
Arved Sandstrom
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> :In article <EFd%m.58085$Db2.53198@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
> :<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :The trouble with you, Arved, and I will hope you take this as a comment
> :from a friend, is that when everybody else is into barking goatshit or
> :worse, you insist on being resolutely intelligent. It will do you no
> :good, mark my words. But it is not unappreciated by at least a few.
> :
>
> We're going to have to disagree, Alan. Arved has a tendency to get
> locked up into 'logic games' rather than actual logic.
[ SNIP ]
There's a lot of truth to that statement, Fred. I get locked up in logic
games with people who choose to play with logic rather than employ it.
As a result, each and every person who has a tendency to engage in
sophistry, and with whom I have attempted to have reasoned discussions,
certainly must walk away with the impression that I am guilty of the
same word-tricks and shabby logic that they are. For my part, lesson
learned: it's impossible to seriously debate someone who is unwilling to
seriously debate. One simply gets tarred with the same brush.
AHS
Alan Lothian
<fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> :In article <EFd%m.58085$Db2.53198@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
> :<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :The trouble with you, Arved, and I will hope you take this as a comment
> :from a friend, is that when everybody else is into barking goatshit or
> :worse, you insist on being resolutely intelligent. It will do you no
> :good, mark my words. But it is not unappreciated by at least a few.
> :
>
> We're going to have to disagree, Alan. Arved has a tendency to get
> locked up into 'logic games' rather than actual logic.
Oh, I didn't mean he was always *right*. Heavens above, I am
occasionally wrong *myself*. Back in 2004 or 2003 I think it was.
Arved puts thought into things, which is more than can be said for... I
name no names, not even that of your favourite Canadienne.
>
<snippaggio>
> :
> :Actually, here's a New Year competition: hijacking an aircraft with
> :nose tweezers. Or nail clippers, let's keep the contest open. "Fly into
> :those tower blocks or I'll snip off the corner of your earlobe."
> :
>
> Actually, neither of those items is prohibited.
I have had nail clippers confiscated in a London airport, although it's
the Swiss Army knife I'm really pissed off about. I have never actually
owned a pair of nose tweezers. Looking at the state of my ageing nose,
perhaps I should acquire some.
Funniest airport security tale I can recall: my then 14-year-old son
and his 14-year-old Italian best pal were returning to Italy. At
Portobello Road market in London, young Cosimo had bought a couple of
clips of (empty) .303 ammunition because (boys being boys) he thought
they looked really cool. Some sort of sniffer detected explosive
residue, or else, and more probably, an X-ray machine saw the clips; I
had already seen the boys off. (I knew nothing of Cosimo's purchase.)
Immediate up-against-the-wall, motherfucker stuff. Savage interrogation
by jobsworths of two teenage boys. Missed flight, huge expense for poor
old Alan. Cosimo deeply contrite. I don't know why I introduced this as
a "funny story" because it was anything but funny at the time. The
cordite-free clips were about as dangerous as nose tweezers.
> Lots of things that I
> actually *could* hijack an aircraft with are on the 'allowed' list.
Ruthlessness and bare hands will probably do it, as Arved pointed out.
But there is a very easy and undetectable (almost) way to bring
international air travel to a halt. I am certain you know what it is.
Given that jihadis are not always as stupid as they look or behave, the
method is best left unposted, although it can only be a matter of time.
Still and all, the Farouk incident typifies everything that is wrong
with jobsworth security. That said, I do not look forward to flying
again with El Al, although I will do as required. And feel hugely
hassled but safe. Mind you, I figured out a way to hijack or at least
blow up an El Al plane: there are two serious weaknesses. They've
probably fixed one of them by now. It would also be suicidal, and if I
want to commit suicide, I'll do it in the library with the proverbial
revolver and decanter of whisky, not at 35,000 feet. Why go to all that
trouble to murder people you don't even know? It's not as if the plane
would be full of Scottish Nationalists.... :)
Final El Al story, just for the hell of it. Nothing to do with airport
security. My first flight to Israel, due to a convenient error by my
then employer, saw me travelling first, aka King David, class. Nobody
but me and the seven-foot tall, red-haired sky marshal who used the
little compartment at the front of an old 707 as his base for roving
forays. Nice chap. [Even then I strongly suspected there was another,
5-foot-two and female, skymarshal lurking in back.]
Much indulged Alan finishes quite decent meal, lights complimentary
cigar (those were the days). Summons stewardess (one to one service,
since the sky marshal has gone a-prowling.)
"I think I'd like to try some of your Israeli brandy," says Alan.
Stewardess, affronted: "Sir, this is King DAVID class. You'll have Remy
Martin and like it."
I've never been sure whether I like Israel or not, but I sure as hell
respect the place, and I'd rather have an Israeli as a friend than an
enemy. Even if I do have to drink Remy Martin.
Arved Sandstrom
> Arved Sandstrom <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :That's the core idea behind my suggested automated system, that you
> :can't afford a human-based application of El Al security principles to
> :_huge_ airlines, because of the passenger volume. Whatever extra
> :screening you do along these lines has to happen on *passenger* time,
> :not airline/airport *security* time. In fact it can't even happen at the
> :airports.
> :
>
> Automated systems like this simply don't work very well. Now you're
> generating scads of data and video that a human being is going to have
> to go through without the advantage of being able to pursue items with
> the interviewee.
You're thinking inside the box, Fred. You're thinking of current
systems, and you're still locked into the idea that any system of this
sort must have lots of humans involved.
No shit that systems of this sort don't work very well. Maybe, just
maybe, that means that systems of this sort are in their infancy. Are
you an expert systems...expert? Do you have reason to think that this
problem domain is not amenable to an expert system? Do the security
professionals not have some rules that they employ? Is not a fair
percentage of the data that gets evaluated just that, data? Maybe as a
sideline you do specialize in expert systems, Fred...in that case,
criticize away.
The entire point of this suggested automated system of mine is to do as
much heavy lifting as is possible *without* human intervention. If you
choose to conclude that there won't be any human intervention at all in
the overall security process then that's a conclusion you arrived at on
your own. In fact there would obviously still be some, but if the
automated system works then there would be less.
> :For the most part passenger time is cheap. Even if they don't think so.
> :Make the passengers do more of the work involved in proving that they
> :are not security risks.
> :
>
> A great way to end air travel. Businesses will switch to other modes
> of transport or teleconferencing and businesses are what fund the
> airlines.
You have better suggestions? The premise of this thread is increased
airline security. I suggest to you that there are precisely zero ways of
doing that which will not consume more passenger time. What _is_
controllable is how much airline security time is consumed, and an
automated system could decrease human airline security resource expenditure.
You're actually addressing a different point, which is, would any
feasible increased-security solutions be palatable to the travelling
community. Maybe they wouldn't be. Different topic, though.
I might also add, you're leaping to yet other conclusions about this
suggested automated system. It's not like I produced a systems
requirements document for the thing yet, Fred. For example, what makes
you think that a frequent flyer would have to endure this automated
questionnaire process before every proposed flight? If a business
traveller can't take a couple of hours out of their schedule every 6
months or a year to do something like this then I'd say they need better
time management.
> :It's only an initial idea, but short of expanding airline security staff
> :enormously with skilled professionals, and seeing the price of an
> :airline ticket go up fivefold or tenfold, it's probably the only way to
> :do it. As William pointed out, profiling only takes you so far - El Al
> :does profiling themselves, but it's not the main reason for the success
> :of their system.
> :
>
> Actually it is. They use profiling to determine who gets the extra
> attention. The additional attention may uncover data that triggers an
> interview. That's done in a room face to face.
Like I said, Fred. Profiling isn't the main reason for the success of
the El Al system. You just said so yourself. Or is the additional
attention and the interviews entirely secondary in your view?
The profiling is quite coarse-grained. And it's not the only factor that
enters into figuring out who gets extra attention, not even close.
In any case, you chose to ignore my main point in that last paragraph,
which is that increased human security a la El Al will enormously
increase human security staffing requirements. Or do you think it would not?
AHS
Andrew Swallow
> They're too obviously weapons, or following some kind of convoluted
> hollywood plotline they could be used to put the aircrafts electrical
> systems out of order. I would suggest a competition involving a far more
> nefarious substance.....Toblerone.
>
> At CdG some years ago I had an opened tube of Toblerone confiscated as a
> security risk[*]. I'm not sure why toblerone should be considered such a
> security risk but I'm open to suggestions as to how you take over an
> airliner with a partly eaten bar of the stuff. All I can think of is
> either wielding the bar and shouting "this plane goes to CUBA or anyone
> with a nut allergy gets it". Or the more sophisticated version: target
> an aircrew staff who has a nut allergy and at the appropriate time
> threated then with chocolate coated death if control of the aircraft
> isn't handed over.
Possible aircraft attack plan
Buy toblerone
Make solid explosive
Die explosive chocolate brown and mould into the appropriate mountain
shape
Carefully open toblerone and extract chocolate from box and tin foil
Wrap explosive in the tin foil and insert into cardboard box
Buy airline ticket and prepare virgin chat up lines.
Andrew Swallow
Iain Rae
I've read that when 41(Independent) Commando RM were being deployed to
Korea in response to the invasion they had to fly commercially though a
number of (supposedly at least) neutral countries. So they were issued
with clothing chits and new passports "to blend in".
This resulted in a group of dodgy looking guys with crew cuts, all
wearing garish holiday clothes and army boots carrying kit bags marked
XXXX1234XXX RM Marines. All the passports were issued the same day by
the same office. I can't remember some of the occupations that were
claimed but I'm sure "Condom tester" was one of them.
Mark Borgerson
richar...@earthlink.net says...
can detect TATP is going to be set off by fingernail
polish or remover?
Mark Borgerson
frank
> In article <030120101954021503%alanloth...@mac.com>, alanloth...@mac.com
> says...
>
> > An unnecessary precaution, really: what security Jobsworth is going to
> > notice 24 superfit crewcut young men?
>
> My unit did a movement by commercial air once and we just had to laugh
> when Top called out in the terminal,
>
> "Don't do anything to stand out"
>
> at 100 some fit young men and women standing over two dufflebags each...
>
> Nah, we didn't stand out at all...
Wife was married to LE that responded to Cuban riots at the prison way
back when Castro dumped his prisons on us. Ex at the time was part of
contingent that went in, brought their personal weapons as well as
whatever they got from the armory. Pretty much the kitchen sink. Hit
the check in with huge footlockers full of weapons and ammo.
Check in: These footlockers are heavy
Federal LE: Medical supplies...
frank
I'm waiting for the Al Quaeda debrief on what went wrong.
'But, how will I have the 72 virgins if I have the explosives in my
underwear..'
No doubt that's a good recruiting tool.
La N
The river of wine that is offered with this sacrifice will dull the pain of
not being able to accommodate the virgins.
- nilita
frank
I remember once we had a specially made sensor that had to be
transported priority, was 5 feet long, in a box. Had to be moved with
'this end up' entire trip. Was interesting having travel arrangements
for that. One of the logistics engineers was with it the entire trip
to Korea on orders. Pretty much had a bird Colonel waiting for it in
Korea to expedite it through customs, he brought a ROK counterpart for
the language translations. Much fun was had by all ensuring two seats
together were there for the entire trip on the different connecting
airlines. The orders he had helped. This was back when $50k was real
money.
One of those we need it there yesterday events.
Alan Lothian
<paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> My unit did a movement by commercial air once and we just had to laugh
> when Top called out in the terminal,
>
> "Don't do anything to stand out"
>
> at 100 some fit young men and women standing over two dufflebags each...
>
> Nah, we didn't stand out at all...
But I am sure your excellent, skilled and deeply experienced senior
NCOs made sure you hadn't packed your nose tweezers.
Enough. Back to my humble supper of olives, fresh bread and deep-frozen
gin. Great snow-laden clouds arriving every minute. This could be it,
chaps. Nice knowing you all. White stuff is already falling in indecent
quantities. The half-smothered church bell is sounding le tocsin.
Stalwart bell-ringers. Damn. Silenced already. Fine types, though,
jolly fine types. I shall put on my dressing gown and meet my fate
like a gentleman, although I'm buggered if I can find my long
cigarette-holder. It's a race between the thawing of the gin and the
freezing of, ah, other bits. Never fear, finest traditions etc....
Crunchy stuff, frozen gin.
Arved Sandstrom
> In article <MPG.25aa996...@news.bytemine.net>, tankfixer
> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My unit did a movement by commercial air once and we just had to laugh
>> when Top called out in the terminal,
>>
>> "Don't do anything to stand out"
>>
>> at 100 some fit young men and women standing over two dufflebags each...
>>
>> Nah, we didn't stand out at all...
>
>
> But I am sure your excellent, skilled and deeply experienced senior
> NCOs made sure you hadn't packed your nose tweezers.
>
> Enough. Back to my humble supper of olives, fresh bread and deep-frozen
> gin.
Sounds like you're growing nicely into the role of a dour yet amiable
Gallic peasant. If I find out that you've taken up goat husbandry and
p�tanque I'll know the transformation is complete.
AHS
tankfixer
says...
>
> In article <MPG.25aa996...@news.bytemine.net>, tankfixer
> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > My unit did a movement by commercial air once and we just had to laugh
> > when Top called out in the terminal,
> >
> > "Don't do anything to stand out"
> >
> > at 100 some fit young men and women standing over two dufflebags each...
> >
> > Nah, we didn't stand out at all...
>
>
> But I am sure your excellent, skilled and deeply experienced senior
> NCOs made sure you hadn't packed your nose tweezers.
This was back in the dark ages, pre 9/11..
I'd dare say that 100% of us had at least a multi-tool and a knife
besides on our belts or in pockets..
Alan Lothian
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bugger, Arved. You might be right. Although unless the weather changes
overnight, the petanque pitch is going to be under about two feet of
snow. And I'm really not that interested in goats, not while there a
few middle-aged Fran�aises around with a glint in their eye.
In re petan
Kerryn Offord
The thing is, if they work off (react by detecting) nitrates, then
around the groin they are likely to pick up a lot of false positives
dott.Piergiorgio
> Sounds like you're growing nicely into the role of a dour yet amiable
> Gallic peasant. If I find out that you've taken up goat husbandry and
> p�tanque I'll know the transformation is complete.
... Like the mythical Legionaries of the Ninth ? ;)
Best Regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
> Hair dark (except for bald patches) and standing up aggressively. Eyes
> bloodshot, dripping with rage. Me, the most liberal and tolerant of
> men. But El Al security is secure. Bastards. Not at all nice. First
> time I flew with them was in the mid-80s, very shortly after the Rome
> Airport massacre. Mad bad bastards fired automatic weapons for about 25
> seconds, killing assorted innocents, before Israeli El Al chap got his
> pistol out from under his desk and started shooting them thoroughly
> dead. Carabinieri useless, running around in circles, screaming and
> shouting and discharging automatic weapons more or less at random. V.
> nasty but by no means unprovoked Israeli chap breathes deeply and takes
> aim again.
Meh, on the failure of the Carabinieri at Fiumicino, I attribuite this
to the classical "post-war lowering of the guard", the war in question
being the rather awful decade and half just ended....
A pair or so of year later, when they take control of the MS Achille
Lauro, the reply was rather different, and Arabs learn very quickly to
not mess with major Navies (and even Reaganian US of A learn to not mess
with the peculiar hostage negotiation systems we use in the following
extra-time at Sigonella)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
> A friend, at the same period, used a 12 bore to go for rats. Indoors.
> Bad news for rats, but collateral damage problem far from trivial.
> Still, rats can be a real nuisance, and cats are worthless against
> them. Terriers, that's what you need. Blasting off a couple of 12 bore
> barrels is pretty damned stupid, if you think about it. Ends rat, mind
> you, have to grant that much. Fucking great holes in wall, though,
> which you then have to fix before more rats come through them.
Depends on the age of cat, trust me. the old feline now sleeping next to
me in her youth takes hundreds of mouses & rats....
Also, I have once fired in the rather short & narrow cellar here
("dungeon" should be more exact, because this mansion was built on a
XVIth century small monastery) with a 12 gauge, the results on the thick
plank and the wall behind speaks volumes, and is my opinion that rat
hunting should be done with 16 gauge, perhaps also with reduced charge.
(and in the confined space of cellars & similia, I suspect is better a
.22 or .177 plinker pistol than a long weapon)
I'm sure that rat hunting is also the source of the term "shooting his
feets, so better leave this matters to (young) felines and terriers (not
the Naval varieties, of course ;) )
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
> At the time, I looked Celtish, i.e. fair skin with some freckling, brown
> hair (the red and blonde were beginning to turn grey) ginger moustache,
> blue eyes, 180 cm, 80-ish Kg. I could pass for an Albertan, but not an
> Arab.
Not for a German, concur, but enough "aryan" to turn on Mosaic instinct
in Hebrews, no wonder about your experiences there.
(I always suspect that these Jerichos has an alternate target set called
"final solution of aryan problem" or something like....)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Andrew Chaplin
news:wEG0n.76719$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it:
Feline ratting abilities depend largely on the ambition or curiosity of
the cat. If you're serious, though, you get a terrier like a Jack
Russell. My lurcher, standing about 55cm at the shoulder and weighing
about 24Kg, used to despatch rodents and lizards with a single snap of
her jaws, but she could not get into where they would hide.
Alan Lothian
dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom ha scritto:
>
> > Sounds like you're growing nicely into the role of a dour yet amiable
> > Gallic peasant. If I find out that you've taken up goat husbandry and
> > p�tanque I'll know the transformation is complete.
>
> ... Like the mythical Legionaries of the Ninth ? ;)
Really interesting stuff about 9th Legion (notwithstanding the
excellent novel by Rosemary Sutcliff) was not that it was destroyed in
battle by Nasty Scottish Ancestors of Alan. Apparently it was simply
lost in the accounting system, which is usually much more dangerous to
soldier chaps than enemy artillery. To get back on-topic, many's the
ship that rotted in port for similar reasons.
My Nasty Scottish Ancestors were, of course, quite capable of
destroying any Roman Legion, which is why you cowardly Latins spent so
much money building Hadrian's Wall. We could probably have destroyed
two, and you never had the budget for three, which I must admit would
likely have seen off my Nasty Scottish Ancestors. War aims, resources,
national treasuries: must be matched. President Obama (pbuh) take note.
(Quick one to the Egregio Dottore: how translate "seen off" in
Italian?" Not an easy one, I think, or I would already have got there.)
dott.Piergiorgio
> Really interesting stuff about 9th Legion (notwithstanding the
> excellent novel by Rosemary Sutcliff) was not that it was destroyed in
> battle by Nasty Scottish Ancestors of Alan. Apparently it was simply
> lost in the accounting system, which is usually much more dangerous to
> soldier chaps than enemy artillery. To get back on-topic, many's the
> ship that rotted in port for similar reasons.
>
> My Nasty Scottish Ancestors were, of course, quite capable of
> destroying any Roman Legion, which is why you cowardly Latins spent so
> much money building Hadrian's Wall. We could probably have destroyed
> two, and you never had the budget for three, which I must admit would
> likely have seen off my Nasty Scottish Ancestors. War aims, resources,
> national treasuries: must be matched. President Obama (pbuh) take note.
>
> (Quick one to the Egregio Dottore: how translate "seen off" in
> Italian?" Not an easy one, I think, or I would already have got there.)
"Seen off" I think can be translated to "aver visto di nuovo". il che mi
pare consistente col contesto del Vallo di Adriano, but frankly I'm not
sure to have understood what yu have written ...
On ninth Legion, your "lost in accounting" hypothesis is interesting,
but there's the issue of the later inscription about IX Legio elsewhere,
so personally I suspect, considering also the strong discipline &
excellent organization of the Legions, that they has done a quick and
well-planned. not necessarily covert, strategic redeploying (and the
really advanced road net they create all around EU and Med enable this,
and the "shock and awe" in finding the camps empty or near-empty
more or less suddenly has given the new pub talking, whose in due time
became tell tale, then legend, then myth, as explained by the great
Master of storytelling, Tolkien.
Jack Linthicum
> Alan Lothian <alanloth...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :My Nasty Scottish Ancestors were, of course, quite capable of
> :destroying any Roman Legion, which is why you cowardly Latins spent so
> :much money building Hadrian's Wall. We could probably have destroyed
> :two, and you never had the budget for three, which I must admit would
> :likely have seen off my Nasty Scottish Ancestors. War aims, resources,
> :national treasuries: must be matched. President Obama (pbuh) take note.
>
> The Romans seem to have had problems with all my ancestors. On the
> one hand, they built a huge wall to keep them out. On the other hand
> (the Huns), they failed to build a wall and basically got destroyed.
> Narsty buggers all around.
>
> Oh, by the way, I mentioned Nilita's meltdown over in
> soc.culture.scottish and someone peeked in over here and wanted to
> just send their regards:
>
> "Nevertheless, would you be so kind as to extend my heartfelt
> regards to A. Lothian for the statement: "to have been edu-
> cated in the old Scots scientific tradition, which absolutely
> depends upon cool scepticism." He's my kind of fossil. :-)"
>
> -- Deirdre
>
> There you go, then. :-)
>
> --
> "Speed and Violence. Death and Destruction.
> Someone's gonna die. We decide who."
> --VWF 11 Targeting
In my neck of the woods, and some others, that's called a "gloat", the
sign of a true gentleman.
dott.Piergiorgio
> The Romans seem to have had problems with all my ancestors. On the
> one hand, they built a huge wall to keep them out. On the other hand
> (the Huns), they failed to build a wall and basically got destroyed.
> Narsty buggers all around.
you have looked at the borders of the First Empire ?
the issue in here was recognized, and was correctly recognized that to
take Germany without the cooperation of his denizens, was needed to
attack to both sides, whose mean a really large-scale encircling
manoeuvre across terra incognita, a really formidable military venture,
but feasible considered the rather unique prowess of the Legions (the
only army I know capable of building from zero an entire logistical
infrastructure in the wake of their advancing) and actually Caesar and
Trajan have set in motion this scheme. the first was stopped by an
unwise political assassination and the second by illness and death. the
intended Limes was (and still is) the Neck of Euruope, from Koenigsberg
to Odessa. a line more or less linear and easily defensible, if we
consider both the engineering capability the unique strategic mobility
the First Empire has.
Having as limes that absurd Renan-Danubian line, whose even a cadet
recognize as untenable, the end results was inevitable, but we manage to
keep half of the First Empire more or less intact for more than another
half-millennia....
this is why I consider inevitable that the EU will soon start to enlarge
south and south-east, ultimately settling for not few centuries the
issue of world balance of powers....
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Alan Lothian
Chaplin <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
<snippaggio>
>
> Feline ratting abilities depend largely on the ambition or curiosity of
> the cat.
An un-neutered and underfed tom is your only real hope, and even then a
cat confronted by a bloody big rat is likely to say to itself "Fuck
this for a game of soldiers." How did the old song go:
"There were rats, rats, as big as pussy cats
In the store, in the store...."
I always loved the O'Brian novel where the ship's rats get at Dr
Maturin's supply of coca leaves, with interesting effects on their
behaviour.
> If you're serious, though, you get a terrier like a Jack
> Russell.
That's the very chap. Small snappy terriers: there's a choice, albeit
limited, of breeds. We are not looking for a lady's lapdog here. And
you have to be very careful of your fingers around a proper ratter,
when its blood is up.
> My lurcher, standing about 55cm at the shoulder and weighing
> about 24Kg, used to despatch rodents and lizards with a single snap of
> her jaws, but she could not get into where they would hide.
Seen it done by a very small mongrel "terrier". Snap and swing: rat's
back/neck broken just like that. Technique, not just instinct. Very
valuable little dog, later run over by an idiot in a pickup truck. But
I think we can all agree that indoor use of a 12-bore is more than
somewhat ill-advised, however effective. A long time ago, I acquired
some .22 long rifle *shotgun* ammunition. Essentially leaden
sand-grains, and designed to kill small birds with little damage for
taxidermy. Fouled the barrel shockingly, but it would have done for a
rat and was pretty well harmless beyond about 15 feet. Hmm. Best idea
could be the old "snake pistol", although you might well have to make
your own ammunition: basically an old .38-ish short-barrelled revolver
firing small shot. I've never used one myself, but it would certainly
whack a rat, with rather less collateral damage than the 12 bore and
with a kill rate flattering to poor pistol shots. And far quicker to
bring into action, at that. It would also be 100% illegal in the UK and
indeed much of Europe: in the US you can probably buy the things in
Wal-Mart.
I agree with the good Dottore about .22 air pistols, though, which will
generally do for your average rat. Assuming you hit it, of course. If
you miss, the damage to the furniture is barely noticeable. A .177 will
just make a hole in the bugger, who will then go to earth and bleed to
death, stinking the house out for months. (The major drawback of rat
poison, otherwise easily the best rat-control method.)
Rat-snapping: there's a Ted Hughes short story describing a
Yorkshireman who killed rats exactly a la terrier: snap and swing.
People took bets on him, of course: his hands were tied behind his back
to give the rat a fighting chance.
Alan Lothian
dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Alan Lothian ha scritto:
>
<snippaggio>
> > (Quick one to the Egregio Dottore: how translate "seen off" in
> > Italian?" Not an easy one, I think, or I would already have got there.)
>
> "Seen off" I think can be translated to "aver visto di nuovo". il che mi
> pare consistente col contesto del Vallo di Adriano, but frankly I'm not
> sure to have understood what yu have written ...
Non sono sicuro. Due sensi di "see off" -- "salutare alla partenza",
all'aeroporto per esempio. Ma anche sconfiggere: "we saw off those
E-boats last night". "Li abbiamo visti di nuovo"? Hmm. "There's an
enemy patrol out there, but we'll see the bastards off in the morning."
"We have already seen off three Chinest human wave attacks but we re
running out of ammunition." (That one is close to an authentic quote;
Gloucestershire Regiment, Imjin River, 1951.) English phrasal verbs,
hmm. Maybe the first meaning works better in Italian. "Abbiamo gia'
salutato la partenza a loro tre volte, ma ora ci mancano le cartucce."
Non lo saprei. A te.
>
> On ninth Legion, your "lost in accounting" hypothesis is interesting,
> but there's the issue of the later inscription about IX Legio elsewhere,
> so personally I suspect, considering also the strong discipline &
> excellent organization of the Legions, that they has done a quick and
> well-planned. not necessarily covert, strategic redeploying (and the
> really advanced road net they create all around EU and Med enable this,
> and the "shock and awe" in finding the camps empty or near-empty
> more or less suddenly has given the new pub talking, whose in due time
> became tell tale, then legend, then myth, as explained by the great
> Master of storytelling, Tolkien.
>
Could be. One thing seems certain, though: the Ninth did not vanish in
the wastes of Scotland.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <Xns9CF753944A764bluegrif...@216.196.109.144>, Andrew
My neighbor would sit on the roof of shed that used his back fence as
a wall. Garbage cans on the alley side right below his position. 12
gauge. No rats.
Alan Lothian
dott.Piergiorgio <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Alan Lothian ha scritto:
>
> > Hair dark (except for bald patches) and standing up aggressively. Eyes
> > bloodshot, dripping with rage. Me, the most liberal and tolerant of
> > men. But El Al security is secure. Bastards. Not at all nice. First
> > time I flew with them was in the mid-80s, very shortly after the Rome
> > Airport massacre. Mad bad bastards fired automatic weapons for about 25
> > seconds, killing assorted innocents, before Israeli El Al chap got his
> > pistol out from under his desk and started shooting them thoroughly
> > dead. Carabinieri useless, running around in circles, screaming and
> > shouting and discharging automatic weapons more or less at random. V.
> > nasty but by no means unprovoked Israeli chap breathes deeply and takes
> > aim again.
>
> Meh, on the failure of the Carabinieri at Fiumicino, I attribuite this
> to the classical "post-war lowering of the guard", the war in question
> being the rather awful decade and half just ended....
I have no doubt this is true. But somewhat later, having a drink with
our local Maresciallo, a man of some considerable experience, he
expressed vehement displeasure at the efficacy, or lack of it, shown by
the Fiumicino carabinieri. The extraordinary thing, really, is just how
damned fast that El Al man reacted. From a cold start. On a quiet day.
Not fast enough to save some lives, but fast enough to save others. By
God did he earn his pay.
And apart from you and me, I wonder how many people even remember it
today.
Paul J. Adam
<alanl...@mac.com> writes
>And apart from you and me, I wonder how many people even remember it
>today.
Me?
Too young to register at the time, but I'd heard about it a long, long
time ago.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Jim Yanik
news:060120101901450026%alanl...@mac.com:
Live traps;you set them,they catch the rat,you dispose of the live animal
however you wish. Some folks prefer drowning in a bucket.I suppose you
could rig up a hose to a car's tailpipe,put it to sleep with CO.
>
> Rat-snapping: there's a Ted Hughes short story describing a
> Yorkshireman who killed rats exactly a la terrier: snap and swing.
> People took bets on him, of course: his hands were tied behind his back
> to give the rat a fighting chance.
>
my parents told me a tale of a cat(Stubby) they had that attacked a dog
that was lifting it's leg to pee on the laundry basket with our damp
clean laundry about to be hung on the clothesline. They said the cat got on
the dog's back and rode it for a short distance.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Arved Sandstrom
> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :My Nasty Scottish Ancestors were, of course, quite capable of
> :destroying any Roman Legion, which is why you cowardly Latins spent so
> :much money building Hadrian's Wall. We could probably have destroyed
> :two, and you never had the budget for three, which I must admit would
> :likely have seen off my Nasty Scottish Ancestors. War aims, resources,
> :national treasuries: must be matched. President Obama (pbuh) take note.
>
> The Romans seem to have had problems with all my ancestors. On the
> one hand, they built a huge wall to keep them out. On the other hand
> (the Huns), they failed to build a wall and basically got destroyed.
> Narsty buggers all around.
To quote Jordanes
(http://www.romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?DocID=Gth_goth_24) on the Huns:
"a stunted, foul and puny tribe, scarcely human, and having no language
save one which bore but slight resemblance to human speech."
This explains quite a lot, Fred.
AHS
Jeffrey Hamilton
Fred rewrote the book. To be totally honest, it's a work in progress.......
cheers.....Jeff
dott.Piergiorgio
> Non sono sicuro. Due sensi di "see off" -- "salutare alla partenza",
> all'aeroporto per esempio. Ma anche sconfiggere: "we saw off those
> E-boats last night". "Li abbiamo visti di nuovo"? Hmm. "There's an
> enemy patrol out there, but we'll see the bastards off in the morning."
> "We have already seen off three Chinest human wave attacks but we re
> running out of ammunition." (That one is close to an authentic quote;
> Gloucestershire Regiment, Imjin River, 1951.) English phrasal verbs,
> hmm. Maybe the first meaning works better in Italian. "Abbiamo gia'
> salutato la partenza a loro tre volte, ma ora ci mancano le cartucce."
> Non lo saprei. A te.
In questo caso la migliore traduzione e' "respinto", che tralaltro
permette di tradurre pressich� letteralmente tutto il resto:
"abbiamo gia' respinto tre ondate cinesi, pero' stiamo per finire le
munizioni".
But, esp. after 1951, the best (Italian) military wording in a
translation on the (first phase ?) of the Korean war should be not
different of mid-1910s, and, following the same concept, an Italian
rendition of a work on Chosin should have a linguistic style akin to
Bedeschi, of course w/o copying too literally.... (Side question, in the
end, what was the final fate of that M4, Dog 23 ?)
dott.Piergiorgio
>> Meh, on the failure of the Carabinieri at Fiumicino, I attribuite this
>> to the classical "post-war lowering of the guard", the war in question
>> being the rather awful decade and half just ended....
>
> I have no doubt this is true. But somewhat later, having a drink with
> our local Maresciallo, a man of some considerable experience, he
> expressed vehement displeasure at the efficacy, or lack of it, shown by
> the Fiumicino carabinieri. The extraordinary thing, really, is just how
> damned fast that El Al man reacted. From a cold start. On a quiet day.
> Not fast enough to save some lives, but fast enough to save others. By
> God did he earn his pay.
>
> And apart from you and me, I wonder how many people even remember it
> today.
Not much, confronted with the words and ink spilled about the indigenous
terrorism.... I'm pretty sure that at least once a day some articles or
public discourse involves this peculiar side of 1970s here...
Last time I checked, there are the Moro-septies trial (that is, the
*seventh* full trial on the events of these awful 55 days in 1978), and
was in the pipeline the inquest for the eight and the ninth.....
Still, I feel that not all is linear on a lesser sex scandal here, that
about the (now former) Governor of Lazio, whose sex abode was no less
than the most infamous building in modern Rome: Via Gradoli 96 (where
was based the Red Brigade's big honcho during the 55 days, and was also
suspected to be one of Moro's prisons, and both age, background &c. of
the former governor and the discreet means at his disposal should have
suggested another "sex retreat".....
Jeffrey Hamilton
> *gentleman*, now should one?
Jack wasn't talking about Dreidre having a 'gloat', Fred.
He was refering to you, I believe.
>>
>> Fred rewrote the book. To be totally honest, it's a work in
>> progress.......
>>
>
> And to be even more honest, Jif can neither read nor write, so his
> opinion is, as usual, totally irrelevant.
Deirdre didn't peek in overhere, Fred. You posted in scs and Deirdre
responded there.
As a matter of fact, Fred, I notice you've seemingly decided to cross post
several other threads to scs, why is that ? Not getting enough support here,
Fred ?
cheers.....Jeff
Strobe
>>
>That's the core idea behind my suggested automated system, that you
>can't afford a human-based application of El Al security principles to
>_huge_ airlines, because of the passenger volume. Whatever extra
>screening you do along these lines has to happen on *passenger* time,
>not airline/airport *security* time. In fact it can't even happen at the
>airports.
>
>For the most part passenger time is cheap. Even if they don't think so.
>Make the passengers do more of the work involved in proving that they
>are not security risks.
>
>The expert system would be a challenge, and a large part of its
>effectiveness would come from tying into databases. The availability of
>the latter could be tricky, but where there's a will there's a way.
>
>It's only an initial idea, but short of expanding airline security staff
>enormously with skilled professionals, and seeing the price of an
>airline ticket go up fivefold or tenfold, it's probably the only way to
>do it.
There's the rub.
Just WHY do we allow ourselves to be fobbed off with a 'security' system staffed
by incompetents?
When you go into hospital, do you acept that the janitor will do your heart
bypass because a real surgeon would be "too expensive"?
Of course not, because your LIFE is at stake.
And you're willing to pay accordingly.
When will we realise that antiterrorist work is also about our very lives,
and deserves a high level of skill?
Why don't we see through the governemnt's claims of "Look everyone, we're paying
thousands of people to make sure you're safe", when they leave out the fact that
they're paying them minimum wage.
With a 10% unemployment rate, it shouldn't be hard to recruit qualified
screeners - IF we offered the right pay.
Strobe
>In article <6EO%m.22582$p33....@newsfe20.ams2>, Iain Rae
><ia...@laeg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01/01/10 17:40, Alan Lothian wrote:
>> > In article<EFd%m.58085$Db2.53198@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
>> > <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Actually, here's a New Year competition: hijacking an aircraft with
>> > nose tweezers. Or nail clippers, let's keep the contest open. "Fly into
>> > those tower blocks or I'll snip off the corner of your earlobe."
>>
>> They're too obviously weapons, or following some kind of convoluted
>> hollywood plotline they could be used to put the aircrafts electrical
>> systems out of order. I would suggest a competition involving a far more
>> nefarious substance.....Toblerone.
>
>Tolblerone terrorism is a major problem in Europe. Ask any security
>jobsworth: he'll explain it to you. Must admit you've opened up the
>contest more than somewhat.
>
><snippaggio of ludicrous but entirely believable story>
>
>
>>
>> So Alan, If you're happy to switch to a swiss chocolate themed
>> competition I'll get a bar of the stuff delivered to whoever you judge
>> to come up with the best way to take over an airliner using toblerone.
>
>Right. Here's the January competition, then. The most implausible but
>just-about-possible way to hijack an airliner. Getting your Toblerone
>confiscated won't do it, Ian. You have to explain its use. And you're
>not allowed to wear a burqa. We have to have *some* rules. And since
>this is essentially a boys' game, you are banned from using Tampax, a
>potentially devastating weapon.
>>
>>
>> [*]I was allowed to carry on an UNOPENED tube of toblerone. Through
>> several years of trial and error I've come up with a scheme to convert
>> bars of this stuff from the sealed to the unsealed state ACTUALLY ON THE
>> PLANE. This negates all the anti toblerone security in place and I'm
>> planning on giving a presentation at the upcoming meeting on Yemen
>> proposed by our own glorious dear leader Gordon himself.
>
>I await your competition entry with interest. I've already worked out a
>nifty trick with nose tweezers, but I'm keeping it to myself for the
>moment. And I admit my cunning plan could be circumvented by a
>counterattack from a Toblerone-armed passenger. And if Mars Bars come
>into it, I haven't a hope in hell.
Fortunately, *fried* Mars Bars are prohibited weapons
under the Geneva Convention
Strobe
>Alan Lothian wrote:
>> In article <6EO%m.22582$p33....@newsfe20.ams2>, Iain Rae
>> <ia...@laeg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[ SNIP ]
>
>>> So Alan, If you're happy to switch to a swiss chocolate themed
>>> competition I'll get a bar of the stuff delivered to whoever you judge
>>> to come up with the best way to take over an airliner using toblerone.
>>
>> Right. Here's the January competition, then. The most implausible but
>> just-about-possible way to hijack an airliner. Getting your Toblerone
>> confiscated won't do it, Ian. You have to explain its use. And you're
>> not allowed to wear a burqa. We have to have *some* rules. And since
>> this is essentially a boys' game, you are banned from using Tampax, a
>> potentially devastating weapon.
>[ SNIP ]
>
>When all is said and done, who needs weapons? Get enough very fit, very
>strong dudes onto the plane, all with combat martial arts training, and
>you're going to be able to control a plane. A couple of air marshals
>would likely take down some of the attackers, and then get pulverized.
>Resisting passengers wouldn't get shot or cut, they'd just get broken up.
>
>But I suspect airline security might look askance at a entire madrassah
>muay thai team wanting to fly on the same plane.
Also, the madrassah might balk at putting all their yeggs in one Boeing.
Strobe
>In article <vk23k5966gvfh6f7s...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
><fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> :In article <EFd%m.58085$Db2.53198@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
>> :<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> :
>> :The trouble with you, Arved, and I will hope you take this as a comment
>> :from a friend, is that when everybody else is into barking goatshit or
>> :worse, you insist on being resolutely intelligent. It will do you no
>> :good, mark my words. But it is not unappreciated by at least a few.
>> :
>>
>> We're going to have to disagree, Alan. Arved has a tendency to get
>> locked up into 'logic games' rather than actual logic.
>
>Oh, I didn't mean he was always *right*. Heavens above, I am
>occasionally wrong *myself*. Back in 2004 or 2003 I think it was.
>Arved puts thought into things, which is more than can be said for... I
>name no names, not even that of your favourite Canadienne.
>>
>
><snippaggio>
>> :
>> :Actually, here's a New Year competition: hijacking an aircraft with
>> :nose tweezers. Or nail clippers, let's keep the contest open. "Fly into
>> :those tower blocks or I'll snip off the corner of your earlobe."
>> :
>>
>> Actually, neither of those items is prohibited.
>
>I have had nail clippers confiscated in a London airport, although it's
>the Swiss Army knife I'm really pissed off about. I have never actually
>owned a pair of nose tweezers. Looking at the state of my ageing nose,
>perhaps I should acquire some.
>
>Funniest airport security tale I can recall: my then 14-year-old son
>and his 14-year-old Italian best pal were returning to Italy. At
>Portobello Road market in London, young Cosimo had bought a couple of
>clips of (empty) .303 ammunition because (boys being boys) he thought
>they looked really cool. Some sort of sniffer detected explosive
>residue, or else, and more probably, an X-ray machine saw the clips; I
>had already seen the boys off. (I knew nothing of Cosimo's purchase.)
>Immediate up-against-the-wall, motherfucker stuff. Savage interrogation
>by jobsworths of two teenage boys. Missed flight, huge expense for poor
>old Alan. Cosimo deeply contrite. I don't know why I introduced this as
>a "funny story" because it was anything but funny at the time. The
>cordite-free clips were about as dangerous as nose tweezers.
>
>
>> Lots of things that I
>> actually *could* hijack an aircraft with are on the 'allowed' list.
>
>Ruthlessness and bare hands will probably do it, as Arved pointed out.
>But there is a very easy and undetectable (almost) way to bring
>international air travel to a halt. I am certain you know what it is.
>Given that jihadis are not always as stupid as they look or behave, the
>method is best left unposted, although it can only be a matter of time.
>
>Still and all, the Farouk incident typifies everything that is wrong
>with jobsworth security. That said, I do not look forward to flying
>again with El Al, although I will do as required. And feel hugely
>hassled but safe. Mind you, I figured out a way to hijack or at least
>blow up an El Al plane: there are two serious weaknesses. They've
>probably fixed one of them by now. It would also be suicidal, and if I
>want to commit suicide, I'll do it in the library with the proverbial
>revolver and decanter of whisky, not at 35,000 feet. Why go to all that
>trouble to murder people you don't even know? It's not as if the plane
>would be full of Scottish Nationalists.... :)
>
>Final El Al story, just for the hell of it. Nothing to do with airport
>security. My first flight to Israel, due to a convenient error by my
>then employer, saw me travelling first, aka King David, class. Nobody
>but me and the seven-foot tall, red-haired sky marshal who used the
>little compartment at the front of an old 707 as his base for roving
>forays. Nice chap. [Even then I strongly suspected there was another,
>5-foot-two and female, skymarshal lurking in back.]
Apart from Miriam (who is actually 5-foot two and a half), El Al also has yet
another, unpublicised, layer of security:- all the able-bodied Israeli
passengers have had genuine IDF training, which includes unarmed combat.
An idea:
US airlines should offer free tickets to Israeli youngsters who've just finished
their compulsory IDF service. Many of them already go
off to see the world for a year before buckling down to college and work.
Not only are they fit and trained, they've all had to develop an eye for
suspicious characters.
Alan Lothian
<Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> wrote:
>
> Apart from Miriam (who is actually 5-foot two and a half), El Al also has yet
> another, unpublicised, layer of security:- all the able-bodied Israeli
> passengers have had genuine IDF training, which includes unarmed combat.
There is, I believe, some truth in this observation. The really
dangerous ones, though, are the disabled. They don't want to go through
having arms or legs sawn off again and are not generally disposed to be
excessively polite to would-be hijackers.
>
> An idea:
> US airlines should offer free tickets to Israeli youngsters who've just
> finished
> their compulsory IDF service. Many of them already go
> off to see the world for a year before buckling down to college and work.
> Not only are they fit and trained, they've all had to develop an eye for
> suspicious characters.
Nice idea, but wouldn't work. These kids would never pick out that
78-year-old Norwegian grannie with a Semtex belt. Sure, they'd have
sorted out the "Shoe Bomber" and the mad, sad Farouk bastard [1], but
the grannie would get through every time. You need jobsworths, proper
jobsworths, for that difficult task.
[1] Who has, let it be said, given us all that wonderful line: "You
couldn't even blow your own balls off with a stick of dynamite up your
arse." Well, I edited it a little but that's near enough, and I admit
to a taste for witty insults.
Jack Linthicum
May I point out that the system seemed to work very well up until the
last President needed an excuse for missing the obvious? Adding on
layers of "responsibility" makes everyone look safe, until the "dots"
require someone who knows what he is doing access to the first line of
defense.
frank
I liked the comments tonight on the news that reason guy wasn't caught
was they typed in his name wrong checking if he had a visa. Having
done computer matches, using massive databases, one thing you do is
check spelling. More than once. Its not "'Gred J. McCall' sorry,
noone on this list is a match." At least do the , "Gred? Do you mean
Fred?" Especially if you're looking for a terrorist that was reported
by his dad as having a visa. I know bureaucrats are dumb, but sheesh.
You go look for sex, age, anything to try to find that person.
Especially since you know the embassy the visa was done at.
But, then again, I knew somebody who created data out of whole cloth
and published it for years. My boss took the project over and being
stupid (manager, go figure) used the old data. Got sued by somebody
claiming the state was creating data out of thin air and damaging his
business by how it was published on the web. When you get sued and
can't justify where the data comes from, kinda hard to put up a
defense.
But no doubt stuff like this goes on all the time. Stay tuned if it
gets fixed. No doubt the bad guys are learning from this gotcha more
than we are.
Arved Sandstrom
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 03:07:16 GMT, Arved Sandstrom <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> That's the core idea behind my suggested automated system, that you
>> can't afford a human-based application of El Al security principles to
>> _huge_ airlines, because of the passenger volume. Whatever extra
>> screening you do along these lines has to happen on *passenger* time,
>> not airline/airport *security* time. In fact it can't even happen at the
>> airports.
>>
>> For the most part passenger time is cheap. Even if they don't think so.
>> Make the passengers do more of the work involved in proving that they
>> are not security risks.
>>
>> The expert system would be a challenge, and a large part of its
>> effectiveness would come from tying into databases. The availability of
>> the latter could be tricky, but where there's a will there's a way.
>>
>> It's only an initial idea, but short of expanding airline security staff
>> enormously with skilled professionals, and seeing the price of an
>> airline ticket go up fivefold or tenfold, it's probably the only way to
>> do it.
>
> There's the rub.
>
> Just WHY do we allow ourselves to be fobbed off with a 'security' system staffed
> by incompetents?
The core problem with airline security is scale. A little airline that
flew only wealthy people or corporate VIPs would have much less of a
problem...many fewer people to screen, more willingness to absorb the
price tag of good professional security, and more ability to absorb that
price tag.
The big commodity airlines are unwilling to shell out for the best
security measures, which definitely include top-notch security
professionals, because the industry is cut-throat, and somewhere along
the way we instilled the idea that it should be as cheap (or cheaper) to
fly from point A to point B than it is to drive a car, take a train or
bus, or go by boat. And no democratic government is willing to institute
mandatory measures that effectively tell 90 percent of the traveling
public that they no longer can fly.
AHS
Jack Linthicum
Point was made that Google would have had no problem with a wrong
spelling. Suggests an add-on to the current set up but can it get done?
Alan Lothian
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The core problem with airline security is scale. A little airline that
> flew only wealthy people or corporate VIPs would have much less of a
> problem...many fewer people to screen, more willingness to absorb the
> price tag of good professional security, and more ability to absorb that
> price tag.
>
True. Mind you, here's a suggestion. Let's just have an Airline of
Peace for Muslims to fly on, and ban them from anything else. It's not
a serious suggestion, although it does have its attractions, and would
certainly eliminate an easy 90% of the risk to innocents. FWIW I know a
fair number of perfectly respectable, honest, decent and generally
charming Muslims, peace be upon them. They do not get drunk and ravage
English town centres on Saturday nights. They believe a few weird
things, but then so do I, and they are no more likely than I am to take
bombs onto aircraft. But how many airline security threats have been
caused by anyone other than Muslims in the last 20 years or so? The
number is not zero but it is pretty damned small.
So my unserious suggestion would indeed eliminate most of the risks to
ordinary travellers.
> The big commodity airlines are unwilling to shell out for the best
> security measures, which definitely include top-notch security
> professionals
What is required is the application of intelligence, in every sense of
that word. Jobsworths on minimum wage will not apply what they do not
have much of anyway, and which their managers actively discourage in
any case. All the El Al stories (well, I think there were really only
two) I have posted recently are about an intrusive, irritating and
effective security system versus an intrusive and irritating security
system.
> because the industry is cut-throat, and somewhere along
> the way we instilled the idea that it should be as cheap (or cheaper) to
> fly from point A to point B than it is to drive a car, take a train or
> bus, or go by boat.
This is the problem, really. Still, I am old enough to remember when
you could just get on a plane after no more than a glance from a
retired-cop security type. If even that. But you're right: you simply
couldn't do the El Al stuff on the scale required.
> And no democratic government is willing to institute
> mandatory measures that effectively tell 90 percent of the traveling
> public that they no longer can fly.
No, they only have to tell about 5% max of the travelling public that
they cannot fly at all. Won't happen.
Alan Lothian
<bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
Apologies, Jeff: this is really a response to Fred, which I am picking
up from your post. For some reason, I am not receiving the wise and
gracious words of the good Mr McCall. I know your feelings toward that
gentleman, but must crave your indulgence.
Fred wrote, or quoted:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Nevertheless, would you be so kind as to extend my heartfelt
> >>>> regards to A. Lothian for the statement: "to have been edu-
> >>>> cated in the old Scots scientific tradition, which absolutely
> >>>> depends upon cool scepticism." He's my kind of fossil. :-)"
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Deirdre
> >>>>
> >>>> There you go, then. :-)
I thank the lady for her courtesy, even though I am not yet fossilized.
But there is NO way I am going to show up on scot.culture whatever.
Hmm. The only Deirdre I ever knew was absolutely barking mad and had
about 17 cats. I am sure this Deirdre (not, I trust, of The Sorrows) is
an entirely different person (indeed, her sentiments make that a
99.9999% near-certainty) and I wish her well.
Anyway, it's snowing like shit in the south of France right now and I'm
going to have to put the heating on, despite the bakery downstairs.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <4NE1n.58992$Db2.12546@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
>
There is very high unemployment in the U.S of A now, enough that young
people are lining up to join the Army and Marines, the Navy and Air
Force are being very selective.
Those men and women coming back from the Middle East and leaving the
active duty services could use employment. Using the same standards
for them as the active service types perhaps their "inactive" reserve
time could be counted if they do a turn with TSA. That and decent pay
would give the level of security that the situation requires.
Keep the present bag-handlers and have the "reservists" eyeing the
people as they pass through. A nod to another "reservist" when one
particularly uneasy specimen goes by and you get modified El Al
treatment.
H. Wilker
Alan Lothian <alanl...@mac.com> wrote:
> Mind you, here's a suggestion. Let's just have an Airline of
> Peace for Muslims to fly on, and ban them from anything else. It's not
> a serious suggestion, although it does have its attractions, and would
> certainly eliminate an easy 90% of the risk to innocents.
But does this not simply shift the problem towards identifying someone's
religion? As far as I know, this is not a required field in most
countries' passports, and inferring religion from nationality is not
foolproof, either, so it is easy to fake.
Oh, I just noticed that you only claim 90% - that would fit the
nationality-to-religion inference, but would be totally unacceptable in
today's 100%-security-obsessed, "one life saved is worth absolutely
anything" world. Even though screening passengers from 14 countries does
sound a little bit like it...
I recommend the writings of Bruce Schneier on the subject of sensible
security measures. This is a good summary:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/airport_securit_12.html
Regards
Helge
(This is on-topic in s.m.n because airplanes that are attacked with
on-board bombs often end up in the ocean.)
Peter Skelton
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I rather doubt that. Look at what happened with the trusted CIA
informer recently.
>The big commodity airlines are unwilling to shell out for the best
>security measures, which definitely include top-notch security
>professionals, because the industry is cut-throat, and somewhere along
>the way we instilled the idea that it should be as cheap (or cheaper) to
>fly from point A to point B than it is to drive a car, take a train or
>bus, or go by boat. And no democratic government is willing to institute
>mandatory measures that effectively tell 90 percent of the traveling
>public that they no longer can fly.
>
??????? It is not the airlines that have to shell out for these
measures, it's the public purse.
Peter Skelton
Jim Yanik
> Nice idea, but wouldn't work. These kids would never pick out that
> 78-year-old Norwegian grannie with a Semtex belt.
which is merely an overactive imagination.
There are no "78-year-old Norwegian grannies with a Semtex belt".
Nor are there likely to be any.
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> Deirdre didn't peek in overhere, Fred. You posted in scs and Deirdre
> responded there.
Your logic and conclusion are flawed...badly.
"How" is left as an exercise for the student.
Deirdre
________________
A word to the wise is unnecessary.
dott.Piergiorgio
> An idea:
> US airlines should offer free tickets to Israeli youngsters who've just finished
> their compulsory IDF service. Many of them already go
> off to see the world for a year before buckling down to college and work.
> Not only are they fit and trained, they've all had to develop an eye for
> suspicious characters.
ROTFL !
every true Hebrew should not miss free logistics for a really grand tour
! :D
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio
(p.s. of course, "true Hebrew" in the same vein of "true Scot" or "true
Genoan" :D )