Attempt to blow up airliner foiled

[rjh01]

Why call it a terrorist act at all? Call it a criminal act. Treat the people caught performing such acts in the same way as any other criminal acts.

You can fight terrorism but you cannot win with that method. If you want to know how to win study how the British destroyed the IRA.

 

[novaphile]

An initial FBI analysis found the device contained PETN, also known as pentaerythritol [...]

That is interesting.

I believe that the core of "red cord" is made of PETN, and that there is a small quantity of PETN inside some kinds of detonators.

While you can do interesting tricks with red cord (often also called det cord) like removing the tops of 44 gallon drums, I believe that it's primarily used to trigger a high explosive.

In this case, that makes me speculate... perhaps he just had a number of detonators strapped to his legs, and didn't understand that they're not much of an explosive device, without being attached to some other explosive material?

I'd never hold a detonator in my hand and set it off - I'd expect to lose fingers if not the whole hand - but (I think) you'd have to put a number of them in critical places to harm an airliner. For example attach them to lots of hydraulic lines in lots of places.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you give an example of the US government sitting idly by when it could have take appropriate action to stop a terrorist act?

Before or after 9/11/01?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...- if I got caught with a stupid small screwdriver, how the hell did this guy NOT get caught with explosives strapped to his legs???

Because they were not explosives. All the idiot succeeded in doing was burning his crotch.

...- then I remember that the inspector didn't even bother checking a laptop cord bag.....

But it went through the Xray, right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

[SIZE=-1]So, shooting up a military base isn't terrorism, according to Obama[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]But lighting firecrackers on an airplane is. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Just wanted to clarify that, Mr. President. So, what you are saying is that when a muslim who was under investigation for proven extremist views opens fire at Ft. Hood killing and/or injuring dozens, that is NOT terrorism and we shouldn't just to conclusions. When a Nigerian lights firecrackers on an airplane injuring only himself, then we should declare it terrorism within two hours of the incident. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. President. I was a bit confused. You should invite Mr. Hasan and Mr. Firecracker to the 'House for beer.[/SIZE]

Much as I am tempted to agree with you because the Ft Hood shooter might have been more terrorist than personal failure shooter, I cannot. In the latest case the plane arson's parents had reported they were concerned the kid had been influenced by terrorists in Yemen. In the Ft Hood shooter's case the guy fit the profile of a jerk who blames everyone else for his failures and went on a shooting rampage over it.

I do agree we should carefully examine the evidence in both cases before drawing a conclusion. But I do not agree the evidence is clearly the same in both cases.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would argue that the Fort Hood shooting incident qualifies. Although the government had no information (that we know of) regarding the specific terrorist attack, government officials appear to have either missed or ignored so many warning signs that their actions approach those of a farce.

I do agree that in the Ft Hood case the people who ignored the warning signs should be held accountable.

 

[William Parcher]

We can handle this new brand of airliner "terrorism" - if terrorism is what it actually is.

Reid in 2001 was unable to get his shoe to blow up and was overpowered by regular folks.

Abdulmutallab just yesterday was unable to get his legs to blow up and was overpowered by regular folks.

These two terrorist guys were totally dysfunctional for what seems to be their original intent of destroying a jet plane and killing people.

Yeah, they caused disruptions and annoyances to various factions (to prevent this from happening again) but they failed at their true goals. Both wanted to blow up the airplane, but something was wrong with their devices.

This seems to be more like dorkball terrorist wannabes than the real thing. Maybe I'm wrong. Is al-Qaida so primitive and ineffective that their guy is unable to do anything other than to burn his own legs?

 

[Riayn]

Oh yes. Passengers were also not allowed to have any personal items in the last hour of the flight. No laptops, no books, magazines, pillows, blankets.. NOTHING.

This is what I don't understand. Everything you have brought on the plane has been checked by security, so why on earth can't you have it with you in the last hour of the flight? Does the TSA think their own security is doing such a crap job of checking passengers before they get on the plane that they have to prevent passengers from accessing any of their personal items now? It's madness.

 

[Dr Adequate]

if this was an actual Al Qaeda mission, this does not make them look very scary and capable.

To be fair, the thing about being a suicide bomber is that you don't get much practice.

 

[SezMe]

Oh yes. Passengers were also not allowed to have any personal items in the last hour of the flight. No laptops, no books, magazines, pillows, blankets.. NOTHING.

This makes no sense. Now, if some nutjob wants to bring down a plane, he knows he has to do it an hour before arrival. I'd say it is a case of closing the barn door after the horse got out but there doesn't seem to be a horse or barn around.

 

[Ladewig]

Before or after 9/11/01?

The original post was about not learning a lesson after 9/11.

 

[Ladewig]

it would be advantageous to have it happen over land, where a thorough recovery of the wreckage and subsequent analysis would reveal a bomb did it. Over water, all you get are some scraps of floating debris, plus a possibly weeks-long search to find the sunken wreckage,

They can also claim a victory on American soil.

 

[TaoMacGuy]

So considering we, generally, have to run our shoes through the x-ray machine now, considering we possibly won't be allowed personal devices on our persons the last hour of flight now, considering they are contemplating allowing only a single carry-on now, considering what other inanity may be forthcoming, I humbly submit the following...

1. All of the above are examples of being reactive, not proactive.

2. Imagine all of the above (and whatever is to come) had been done, from day 1 (12 September, 2001?), proactively. Imagine how that would have gone over with the public. "What, I have to take my sandals off too? What, I have to put everything away an hour before landing? What, I have too submit to a pat-down. What, I have to...?"

It would seem to me, airport security being mostly Kabuki, will be reactive by nature if, for no other reason, people don't generally tolerate proactive measures without, in their minds anyway, a "just cause".

I'm a moderate road-warrior (averaging 50K miles per hear or thereabouts). I can't wait. When the day comes where we have to drop our pants, I'll be breaking out my Bozo the Clown underwear!

 

[Alt+F4]

These two terrorist guys were totally dysfunctional for what seems to be their original intent of destroying a jet plane and killing people.

That's the thing about terrorists, they are evil but not necessarily so smart.

In this case, this nut was reported by his own father:

His father, a prominent Nigerian banker, recently told officials at the United States Embassy in Nigeria that he was concerned about his son’s increasingly extremist religious views.

As a result of his father’s warning, federal authorities in Washington opened an investigative file and Mr. Abdulmutallab’s name ended up in the American intelligence community’s central repository of information on known or suspected international terrorists.

Yet he was not placed on the "no fly" list.

The suspect’s name was inserted last month into the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or Tide. About 550,000 individuals are registered in the database. A subset of that is the Terrorist Screening Data Base, or T.S.D.B., which has about 400,000.

By contrast, fewer than 4,000 names from the T.S.D.B. are on the “no-fly” list, and an additional 14,000 on a “selectee” list that calls for mandatory secondary screening. At the time Mr. Abdulmutallab’s name was recorded in the Tide database in November, the official said, “there was insufficient derogatory information available” to warrant putting him in the T.S.D.B., no-fly or selectee lists, and so he was not on any watch list when he boarded the plane bound for Detroit.

So what's the point of being on a Terrorist Indenties list if you can still fly?

Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27terror.html?hp

 

[tyr_13]

Why call it a terrorist act at all? Call it a criminal act. Treat the people caught performing such acts in the same way as any other criminal acts.

You can fight terrorism but you cannot win with that method. If you want to know how to win study how the British destroyed the IRA.

We call it a terrorist act because he claims ties to a known terrorist organization and the said act was also designed to cause terror, do we not?

Yes, it is also a criminal act. It can be both. Based on what is reported right now, I'm comfortable with both labels.

 

[Stout]

FALSE FLAG BLACKOP !!!!!!!

Terrorist action, yea right. I smell a distinct Al-CIA-duh link here.

Why? you ask. Is it any coincidence that the "terrorist" boarded the flight in The Netherlands who, as it just happens, are planning on withdrawing their troops from Afghanistan in 2010. They'll be the first NATO member to do so and this is most definitely a warning by the American/Zionist military industrial complex not to do that.

I want to see just who made last minute cancellations on that flight !!!

Funny thing is, I didn't make that all up, it's just random crap I stumbled across on the Internet without even looking for it.

 

[Thunder]

Al Qaeda and related folks have been blowing **** up in Iraq and Afghanistan for years now. And yet, whenever one of their operatives gets on a plane, they just can't seem to get the thing to blow up.

why is this?

 

[tyr_13]

Snakes

 

[I Ratant]

This is what I don't understand. Everything you have brought on the plane has been checked by security, so why on earth can't you have it with you in the last hour of the flight? Does the TSA think their own security is doing such a crap job of checking passengers before they get on the plane that they have to prevent passengers from accessing any of their personal items now? It's madness.

.
This is an obvious setback to those wishing to blow up the plane an hour before landing.
They'll have to re-train to blow it up an hour and 10 minutes before landing!
All those trips -back- to Al Quaeda land to get the new instructions... the expenses!

 

[Undesired Walrus]

He lived in a £3Million flat here in London:

Very nice.