The Friendly Skies?

Not so friendly.

I am sure that nominal and dannyray are dissapointed that hundreds of people did not die at the hands of muslims extremists, but over all I applaud the British Gov. for the good catch and hope they did in fact foil it and have gotten all involved.

I am glad I don’t have to fly anywhere over the next few weeks.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I am sure that nominal and dannyray are dissapointed that hundreds of people did not die at the hands of muslims extremists, but over all I applaud the British Gov. for the good catch and hope they did in fact foil it and have gotten all involved.

I am glad I don’t have to fly anywhere over the next few weeks.[/quote]

If they were all Trans-Atlantic flights then the death-toll would have been a couple thousand. They had about 10 planes targeted, and those flights don’t travel light.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I am sure that nominal and dannyray are dissapointed that hundreds of people did not die at the hands of muslims extremists, but over all I applaud the British Gov. for the good catch and hope they did in fact foil it and have gotten all involved.

I am glad I don’t have to fly anywhere over the next few weeks.[/quote]

How nice must it be to be the first who can claim nonsense like this.
Pat, you can escape rightwingoverse if you really want. You can do it!

I affiliate with niether right wing or left wing thought processes. These are merely my own thoughts. so may sound right wing some may sound left wing, but I refuse to lump myself in with either group. My political affiliation is my own. I am a one member party. I don’t see how actually acknowleging that a government did something right for a change makes me a right wing-ist. But if not affiliating myself with islamo-facist murderers makes me right wing, than I am proudly that.

oh yeah, another “prevented” terror attack…

Can anyone explain to me why they still go for airplanes?

Not that I think that airplanes are that secure, but you could do at least as much damage in other locations that are even less defended, with much less effort.

However, on a playing field with a gazillion targets the airports are defended and the terrorists keep attacking those.

What is this, nostalgia?

[quote]orion wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why they still go for airplanes?

Not that I think that airplanes are that secure, but you could do at least as much damage in other locations that are even less defended, with much less effort.

However, on a playing field with a gazillion targets the airports are defended and the terrorists keep attacking those.

What is this, nostalgia?

[/quote]

They used a couple of airplanes to take down the TwinTowers - so maybe they know something you don’t? Perhaps where and when they were going to explode?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why they still go for airplanes?

Not that I think that airplanes are that secure, but you could do at least as much damage in other locations that are even less defended, with much less effort.

However, on a playing field with a gazillion targets the airports are defended and the terrorists keep attacking those.

What is this, nostalgia?

They used a couple of airplanes to take down the TwinTowers - so maybe they know something you don’t? Perhaps where and when they were going to explode?[/quote]

I think 9-11 was the logical conclusion of airplane highjackings that became popular in the 70s. There is little left to do there.

There is this Alaskan pipeline that allmost falls apart on its own, there are chemical plants that cannot be made secure aginst a missile attack and what to they try again and again?

Airplanes.

I do not get it.

[quote]orion wrote:

They used a couple of airplanes to take down the TwinTowers - so maybe they know something you don’t? Perhaps where and when they were going to explode?

I think 9-11 was the logical conclusion of airplane highjackings that became popular in the 70s. There is little left to do there.

There is this Alaskan pipeline that allmost falls apart on its own, there are chemical plants that cannot be made secure aginst a missile attack and what to they try again and again?

Airplanes.

I do not get it.[/quote]

I hsve yet to see a terrorist attack that went after a strategic target. Well - maybe the pentagon - but I digress.

They are not going for style points, or originality. The want to instill fear - or terror, if you will - into innocent men, women, and children. Airlines are the target of choice with some. Driving a bomb-loaded car into a wedding party, or a cafe is preferred by others.

Airports are the easiest places to breach security.

Who knows - maybe they are just not a very bright organization.

[quote]orion wrote:

I think 9-11 was the logical conclusion of airplane highjackings that became popular in the 70s. There is little left to do there.

There is this Alaskan pipeline that allmost falls apart on its own, there are chemical plants that cannot be made secure aginst a missile attack and what to they try again and again?

Airplanes.

I do not get it.[/quote]

I think the fixation at this point is more about saying that no matter how much security is put in place, they’ll always be able to exercise enough ingenuity to get by it. YOU ARE NEVER SAFE. That sort of thing.

Imagine being on one of those transatlantic flights today. You have no books, no laptops, nothing, for 8 hours and you’re surounded by a bunch of on edge people. Inevitably there would be some panicky person next to you insisting on talking for the entire flight. At least the terrorists would be relatively quick.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Who knows - maybe they are just not a very bright organization.

[/quote]

This is probably true, thank God they are run by bureaucrats. If they ever became even semi-creative…

[quote]orion wrote:

I think 9-11 was the logical conclusion of airplane highjackings that became popular in the 70s. There is little left to do there.[/quote]

Go to know that you limit your creativity so. Too bad we can’t do the same to them.

Doesn’t this sentence answer you’re own question? Why don’t they just blow up a junkyard?

So, step 1: Find a cheap, easily-manipulated, large, explosive-filled, flying object that you can move virtually anywhere in the country.

step 2: Obtain control of said object, civilian casualties are a plus.

step 3: Gain intimate knowledge of target including where to crash the plane, er, aim the missile so that the building isn’t just destroyed, but whatever hazard it contains is released. Careful planning is required as many of these facilities have containment procedures already in place.

step 4: Apply said object to target in question, maximizing civilian casualties and maximizing the idea that this could happen anywhere at any time.

Train/subway stations? No, no, streetside cafes!? Wait, wait resort hotels! No, wait, now I’ve got it IEDs! No, no, IEDs and life rafts. No… It’ll come to me later.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Airports are the easiest places to breach security.
[/quote]

Our ports are the easiest to breach security.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
orion wrote:

I think 9-11 was the logical conclusion of airplane highjackings that became popular in the 70s. There is little left to do there.

Go to know that you limit your creativity so. Too bad we can’t do the same to them.

There is this Alaskan pipeline that allmost falls apart on its own,

Doesn’t this sentence answer you’re own question? Why don’t they just blow up a junkyard?

there are chemical plants that cannot be made secure aginst a missile attack

So, step 1: Find a cheap, easily-manipulated, large, explosive-filled, flying object that you can move virtually anywhere in the country.

step 2: Obtain control of said object, civilian casualties are a plus.

step 3: Gain intimate knowledge of target including where to crash the plane, er, aim the missile so that the building isn’t just destroyed, but whatever hazard it contains is released. Careful planning is required as many of these facilities have containment procedures already in place.

step 4: Apply said object to target in question, maximizing civilian casualties and maximizing the idea that this could happen anywhere at any time.

what do they try again and again?

Train/subway stations? No, no, streetside cafes!? Wait, wait resort hotels! No, wait, now I’ve got it IEDs! No, no, IEDs and life rafts. No… It’ll come to me later.[/quote]

oh, come on, you know as well as me that they could just poison a small towns water supply or derail a train.

All the things you have mentioned are so 20th century. In part they have been invented by Anarchists that had to light a fuse before throwing a grenade.

If you plant 6 well placed bombs in Manhattan you can cause billions of damage to the US economy using only a few thousand dollars.

The guy who found that out had his paper classified by the Pentagon, btw.

Hint: people are lazy, time is money and you only open a street so often to have gas, electricity or data lines.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Airports are the easiest places to breach security.

Our ports are the easiest to breach security.[/quote]

But there is no “terror factor” in hitting a port.

Airports are easily accessible anywhere in the world. Ports not so much

I’ve noticed that all the details of the plot have come from US officials, from Chertoff and administration officials to unnamed congressmen. I remember that the Brits got pretty annoyed with the Americans for publicly releasing stuff before they wanted it out there during the whole subway thing. I wonder if there are going to be some complaints in the next few days.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Airports are the easiest places to breach security.

Our ports are the easiest to breach security.

But there is no “terror factor” in hitting a port.

Airports are easily accessible anywhere in the world. Ports not so much[/quote]

WTF?

Just because you are a little land locked does not forgive this blatanly false statement.

I have live withing 10 miles of the Pacific or Atlantic oceans my entire life and ports are huge and an extreme liability.

I hope that I never have to say I told you so.

Air Accident (The Entire world - pop. est 6,630,000,000)
2001 - 1,752 Fatalities (incl. 9/11 passengers)

Accidental Falls (The UK alone - pop. est 60,441,000)
2000 - 4,281 Fatalities

Flying is safe.

[quote]orion wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why they still go for airplanes?

Not that I think that airplanes are that secure, but you could do at least as much damage in other locations that are even less defended, with much less effort.

However, on a playing field with a gazillion targets the airports are defended and the terrorists keep attacking those.

What is this, nostalgia?
[/quote]

Good point.