Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

How would doing nothing have prevented this recent mail bomb?

Recs

9

October 31, 2010 – Comments (15)

Recently in daniels blog the issue of airport security was discussed. I was saying its the one liberty breach I really don't mind. A lot of people said that its over the top, and we should be stopping this problem before it gets to the airport

Now how the hell would you have found something hidden inside an ink cartridge without extensive over the top security? I'd rather be seen naked through an x-ray then dead on an airplane. And for the "well what if I don't want to be seen naked" argument, you don't have to fly. Take a boat if you want to be more free

This isn't meant to be an argumentative thread, I am genuinely interested in how to stop these kind of threats without "over the top" security

15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 31, 2010 at 6:39 PM, gkgk7 (< 20) wrote:

The only way to GUARANTEE that another plane will never be blown up or used as a weapon is to shut down the airline industries and create a SyFy channel laser system that blows up anything that gains elevation over 100 feet.  Anything less than that will make it impossible to "stop" these threats. 

So the next best thing is for citizens in a country which traditionally prides itself on "civil liberties" to give up those liberties.  Because the only way you will see if someone is doing something wrong is to look.  A person can walk through the airport with a large sign saying "I'm gonna blow up flight XXXX today" and they will be successful if arresting them violates their right to free speech.

 As for your question, IMHO there really is no way to "stop" someone from doing something bad.  All you can do is use defense-in-depth to put up enough roadblocks and hope one of them is effective.  I'm with you, I'd rather have to walk through security naked and have every bag searched than die; but then I also have nothing to hide.

Report this comment
#2) On October 31, 2010 at 6:54 PM, RLAprof (27.03) wrote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

Report this comment
#3) On October 31, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Valyooo (99.46) wrote:

I hate when people use that quote without being able to actually converse about it

I would have held a gun up to his head and see if he changed his mind

Report this comment
#4) On October 31, 2010 at 8:16 PM, whereaminow (22.93) wrote:

Valyooo,

Before I even start here, I apologized to you on the last blog in case you didn't see it.

I would have held a gun up to his head and see if he changed his mind

You do realize that this is the statement of a psychopath, right?  

Why do terrorists target the United States?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On October 31, 2010 at 8:21 PM, whereaminow (22.93) wrote:

If you put a gun to Ben Franklin's head, he would have shot you.  And he would have been justified.

I think that's kind of the point here. You have no understanding of what Ben was saying.  He's making it clear that you can't pass off the responsibility for your security to someone else.  Your security is your own.  If you pass if off to someone else, you will lose both your security and your liberty.

If Americans want to do something, demand that America remove all troops from the Middle East.

Terrorism over. Need for TSA over. Need for DHS over. Billions of dollars saved. 

Now that's doing something.

Or we can keep doing this same thing we always do, which is fight the wrong fight against the wrong people, losing thousands of lives and spending trillions of dollars until we are all dead or broke.

America will leave the Middle East, either voluntarily or with its tail between its legs.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#6) On October 31, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Varchild2008 (84.02) wrote:

I'm just waiting for Teleportation units to be built...
Come on Google!!!!!  Beam me up!

Report this comment
#7) On October 31, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Valyooo (99.46) wrote:

If I shot him he would be dead before he shot me.

I agree, we always fight the wrong battle with the wrong people.  We should not be in the middle east.

Not sure how that would have stopped John Walker, or every other non middle eastern killer.

I understand the quote, thank you very much.  But throwing it out there and saying nothing else about it is a cop out to having a discussion.

I have had to call the cops a few times when people were breaking into my house, when people were trying to kill me, and when people were threatening my mom.  I have never had a cop harrass me.  So, why exactly can't I pass off that responsibility to them?

You throw around a lot of theories but you never address any realistic scenario.

Report this comment
#8) On November 01, 2010 at 2:23 AM, SockMarket (43.66) wrote:

A couple thoughts:

1. saying that you would hold a gun to someone's head because of their position on something is a wee bit creepy. I hope you're kidding.

2. I find it hard to believe that an explosive packed into something as small as an ink cartridge could have brought down a plane. It reminds me of the underwear bomber: he had enough explosives on him to make sure that he never had any more kids (thankfully) and to blow off the seat covers but there was no way he could have brought down the plane. Given that planes cane fly with 2 foot holes in them, and on only ½ of their engines (usually) I doubt such a tiny bomb could have brought down a plane. Right now the only person I can find who said something to that effect was 1 british official, and for all I know that official was the deputy spokesman. (I will revise this if someone proves me wrong)

3. I don't know how the bomb was caught, I will stand corrected if someone can correct me, however I don't think that it was caught via a new search technique, specifically the one I called into question in my blog.

4. If the problem was an international one, not an internal one, I don't see why putting us through more crap (aka searches) is going to fix the problem. I've got nothing against India, or Yemen improving their security, in fact im all for it, but that has jack to do with our liberty.

Report this comment
#9) On November 01, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Valyooo (99.46) wrote:

I love ben franklin, I wouldnt hold a gun to his head for something he said. I was just saying, I think his opinion may differ when a gun is at his head, then then he is writing quotes.

Something that can fit into an ink cartridge destroying a plane is an even bigger proportion that the ratio of the size of an atomic bomb to the size of a japenese city, and that worked, so why wouldnt this?

And these things do happen internally, especially if the person gets citizenship here.  People hate their own country all of the time.  Take a look at CAPS, half the people here hate America.

Report this comment
#10) On November 01, 2010 at 2:32 PM, SockMarket (43.66) wrote:

Seeing as Franklin helped spark the revolution through some espionage (kind of, see sending the hutchinson letters to the colonies) and he was very clearly a patriot who would have been executed had we lost the revolution I doubt his opinion would change much with a gun next to his head.

Besides, holding a gun to someone's head does not approximate the chances of an outside group attacking society, which is what he, and the discussion, are referring to.



Something that can fit into an ink cartridge destroying a plane is an even bigger proportion that the ratio of the size of an atomic bomb to the size of a japenese city, and that worked, so why wouldnt this?

They think Al-Quida (or however you spell it) was responsible. If you have noticed they use household explosives almost exclusively. Weapons grade plutonium is not a household item. What they are using releases quite a bit less energy per amount of initial mass than a nuke does. You are comparing apples to oranges here. This is a VERY rough guess, and if someone knows more than me please correct me, however I suspect that you would have to blow up at least ½ a tanker full of natural gas to get something that approximated a nuke in the total energy released.



And these things do happen internally, especially if the person gets citizenship here. People hate their own country all of the time.  Take a look at CAPS, half the people here hate America.

No argument about CAPS. That said if it were possible to do this internally I seriously doubt that Al-Quida would have sent it from outside the country. Every stop the package makes and every inspection it goes through increase the chances of getting caught. Therefore it would make sense that they would want to limit that number. Sending from close to the source is the best way to do that, so if it were really a problem here, why didn't Al-Quida send it from the US?

Report this comment
#11) On November 01, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Valyooo (99.46) wrote:

So when people are getting on planes in America, should only foreigners be searched?

Report this comment
#12) On November 01, 2010 at 5:45 PM, SockMarket (43.66) wrote:

only if they are carrying ink cartridges :)


Seriously though, I suggested foreign nations could beef up security, that I was OK with that. Not that we should only search foreigners...

Also back to my original point I don't see how the new searches help, not that Americans should be exempt...

 

Report this comment
#13) On November 01, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Valyooo (99.46) wrote:

This wasn't an attack on you haha. This was more of a discussion because multiple threads have been addressing this issue.

You were saying that if this doesnt happen internally, that it shouldnt effect us. So if some guy from another country comes to America, and on his flight back home tries to bomb the plane, how would it be possible to search just him and not everybody else without exempting Americans?

Report this comment
#14) On November 01, 2010 at 10:48 PM, SockMarket (43.66) wrote:

lol. i know it wasnt.

You don't search him and not everyone else. You give everyone fair treatment. That said the chances of that happening are incredibly small, it would be much, much more likely for someone from within the US to try to ship something in a suitcase if they wanted to take down a passenger plane, it would attract a lot less attention and stand out far less than a foreigner doing it. 

I still don't see why it is a big deal in the US. As I said if they thought they could get away with it here, they almost certainly would have.

Report this comment
#15) On November 01, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Valyooo (99.46) wrote:

Don't forget that people don't always think logically.  Just because it would be easier to use a suitcase doesn't mean people don't try to put bombs in their shoes haha.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement