Firecracker on Plane was terrorist attack!

I'll have to fly quite a bit after the holidays and not all might end that well, add to it the warning for a likely Mumbai style attack on London - these are very scary times.

quote:

Originally posted by MilesSmiles:
I'll have to fly quite a bit after the holidays and not all might end that well, add to it the warning for a likely Mumbai style attack on London - these are very scary times.

The only think we should be scared of is the use of this incident to justify even more ridiculous "security" measures. Terrorism is trivial. (Although obviously not for those tiny number of people directly involved). Look at the statistics. You should be more scared of driving your car. 40,000+ killed every year, just in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh10v52DBLM

now thats a firecracker on a plane

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Terrorism is trivial.

Possibly true. But if you spend your life in major cities, working for big corporations, flying for business to other major cities, I suppose you increase your risks quite significantly, in the quoted instance. Nevertheless, probably still a very small risk.

IIRC Canada is pretty much free from terrorism, which is why you think it trivial.

Its not.

quote:

Originally posted by Lontano:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
Terrorism is trivial.

Possibly true. But if you spend your life in major cities, working for big corporations, flying for business to other major cities, I suppose you increase your risks quite significantly, in the quoted instance. Nevertheless, probably still a very small risk.

This is what I do. I travel a lot with work to a variety of places. It remains an infinitesimally small risk, compared to say, taking a taxi in Beijing, or crossing the road in Ulaan Bataar, or using an ATM in Lima.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
IIRC Canada is pretty much free from terrorism, which is why you think it trivial.

Its not.

I've not always lived in Canada. The risk, statistically speaking, is trivial everywhere except perhaps places that are currently in some sort of conflict. Show me some statistics to refute this.

quote:

Show me some statistics to refute this.

Ok. First off, I agree with you in general. Flying is a relatively safe mode of transport.

I'm not sure what sort of statistics would be meaningful but.....

(a) How many people have died as a result of aviation-related terrorism in the last 10 years. (b) How many people have died as a result of aviation-related incidents in the last 10 years. (b) includes (a).

If (a*100)/b > 25 then I suggest that aviation-related terrorism is not trivial.

Just a suggestion. No purpose other than to start a discussion.

Cheers

Don

I think that's a great approach. Put the numbers in perspective.

Some numbers:

2001 was one of the safest-ever years for air travel.

More US citizens died as a result of choosing to drive, rather than fly in the wake of 911, than were killed in the attacks themselves.

Only around 100 Australians (I am Aussie) have died as a result of terrorism EVER. The vast majority of these were in Bali in one disgusting and cowardly attack a few years back. Someone I knew was amongst them.

I maintain that the risk, statistically speaking, is trivial. Whether this is true because of, or in-spite of, the "security theatre" that we all endure is another debate.

Terrorism affects us all. The 'liquid' bomb plot was real and led to some PIA security measures for us all.

The shoe bomber nut-job caused us all to have a our shoes removed and x-rayed everytime we fly.

Now this nutter, whether he's a 'serious' player or not will cause everyone more airport security heartache.

It's a pain, but a reality of life, and we've really got no choice.

My question is, how the heck did he get it on board ?

And my hat goes off to the brave people on the plane who tackled this POS.

I agree that from a mortality head-count point of view, terrorism does produce a smaller count than say road use. However, by definition lives lost due to terrorism affect us more than those multitude more lost on out roads daily.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
IIRC Canada is pretty much free from terrorism, which is why you think it trivial.

Its not.

I've not always lived in Canada. The risk, statistically speaking, is trivial everywhere except perhaps places that are currently in some sort of conflict. Show me some statistics to refute this.

You seem to be unaware of the effect of terrorism. The Provisional IRA said some years ago, "You have to be lucky all the time; we have to be lucky once."

The fact that less people are killed by terrorists than by driving is of zero relevance. Drivers choose to drive, and accept the riks that go with it. The worry caused by terrorism is that it is blind, indiscriminate and totally random. This being so - that it can happen to anyone without warning - means that it pervades many western societies and affects everyone that lives within them.

Without wishing to sound confrontational, your naivety is borne of ignorance.

I know a bit more than many about these threats; they are not trivial.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
IIRC Canada is pretty much free from terrorism, which is why you think it trivial.

Its not.

I've not always lived in Canada. The risk, statistically speaking, is trivial everywhere except perhaps places that are currently in some sort of conflict. Show me some statistics to refute this.

You seem to be unaware of the effect of terrorism. The Provisional IRA said some years ago, "You have to be lucky all the time; we have to be lucky once."

The fact that less people are killed by terrorists than by driving is of zero relevance. Drivers choose to drive, and accept the riks that go with it. The worry caused by terrorism is that it is blind, indiscriminate and totally random. This being so - that it can happen to anyone without warning - means that it pervades many western societies and affects everyone that lives within them.

Without wishing to sound confrontational, your naivety is borne of ignorance.

I know a bit more than many about these threats; they are not trivial.

The desired effect of terrorism is to terrorise people. Make them scared and force them into fear and irrational behaviour. Terrorists achieve this, but it is testament to the effectiveness of their methods that they don't have kill many people to do so. The randomness is the key.

Yep, it affects everyone - but primarily because we get worked up into a frenzy. The media are complicit. Some conspiracy-theorists argue that it suits some governments to exaggerate the threat. I don't buy into this in a conspiracy sense, but if voters expect "action" then a political party that is not seen to tough, may be unelectable.

Governments do have a responsibility for security and they should take this seriously. The problem is, the public's mis-informed (by the media) view of the likelihood of harm drives the policy towards visible (and mostly useless) security theatre and diverts effort from proper research and "detective work" that is the true key to reducing the threat.

I'm not confronted by your allegations of ignorance. If you wanted informed debate, this isn't the forum (literally).

On anther point: People don't choose to drive. The society we have constructed unfortunately demands it of most people.

Some people also watch too much Nancy Grace.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
IIRC Canada is pretty much free from terrorism, which is why you think it trivial.

Its not.

I've not always lived in Canada. The risk, statistically speaking, is trivial everywhere except perhaps places that are currently in some sort of conflict. Show me some statistics to refute this.

You seem to be unaware of the effect of terrorism. The Provisional IRA said some years ago, "You have to be lucky all the time; we have to be lucky once."

The fact that less people are killed by terrorists than by driving is of zero relevance. Drivers choose to drive, and accept the riks that go with it. The worry caused by terrorism is that it is blind, indiscriminate and totally random. This being so - that it can happen to anyone without warning - means that it pervades many western societies and affects everyone that lives within them.

Without wishing to sound confrontational, your naivety is borne of ignorance.

I know a bit more than many about these threats; they are not trivial.

Well said, Mike.

I should perhaps have characterised what "risk" am talking about.

The risk of being terrorized is very high. Most people are worried about terrorism. We read about it all the time. We see it on TV and on the internet. It seems very scary. We are terrorised, if not actually terrified.

The risk of being incovenienced is very high. We deal with the consequences of the security measures every day. Try living in Vancouver at the moment for example. Or flying anywhere. Or taking a photo of a tube station in London.

BUT, and it is a big BUT, the risk of being killed or injured by terrorists is trivial. Here, I mean the risk personally - not of reading about someone being killed or injured, or of seeing it on TV, but of actually being killed or injured. Being killed by terrorists is statistically close to the least likely way to die that anyone actually thinks about.

That's all I'm saying. Don't be scared. Don't put up with more and more bull$h!+ so-called security measures. Demand that our goverments invest EFFECTIVELY in risk reduction.

quote:

The only think we should be scared of is the use of this incident to justify even more ridiculous "security" measures. Terrorism is trivial.

So without these security measures the terrorists wouldn't bother with another 9/11 - London bus / tube, Indian hotel, Lockerbie -> (endless list)?
To you the risk may appear to be trivial - even if only statistically.
I fear there are enough folk out there who think rather differently about 'stats'

Scotland Yard has warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style attack on the capital.

In a briefing in the City of London 12 days ago, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, said: “Mumbai is coming to London.”

The detective said companies should anticipate a shooting and hostage-taking raid “involving a small number of gunmen with handguns and improvised explosive devices”.

The warning — the bluntest issued by police — has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early next year.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:

quote:

The only think we should be scared of is the use of this incident to justify even more ridiculous "security" measures. Terrorism is trivial.

So without these security measures the terrorists wouldn't bother with another 9/11 - London bus / tube, Indian hotel, Lockerbie -> (endless list)?
To you the risk may appear to be trivial - even if only statistically.
I fear there are enough folk out there who think rather differently about 'stats'

None of the "security measures" prevented these from your "endless list" (which isn't endless at all). There is effective police work that really heps prevent terrorism. Making me walk through airports in my socks isn't one of them.

Yes, lots of people think differently about the "stats". That's the problem. Objective analysis and appropriate counter-measures are replaced by populist garbage security which, though possibly designed to make people feel more secure, seem to have the opposite effect.

On a PURELY emotional level:

Punishment for Air Terrorists - rectal insertion of their explosive device, locking into a blast-proof room, initiation of device.

With a relatd thread in mind: Science can fly you to the moon. Religion just flies you into buildings.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:


None of the "security measures" prevented these from your "endless list" (which isn't endless at all). There is effective police work that really heps prevent terrorism. Making me walk through airports in my socks isn't one of them.

The fact that the events liste have not been repeated would indicate that the measures introduced do work. As there has been no repetition of attempted shoe bombing, making people take off their shoes for examination has clearly worked.

quote:

Yes, lots of people think differently about the "stats". That's the problem. Objective analysis and appropriate counter-measures are replaced by populist garbage security which, though possibly designed to make people feel more secure, seem to have the opposite effect.

I agree whole-heartedly with your comments about the value of effective Police work. I disagree with your dismissal of "populist garbage security" for two reasons; it seems to work, and if it makes people feel better / less terrorised, it has value.

If you have "no need to know" the details undertaken or the number of plots stopped or aborted then this gap in knowledge is often filled by red top publications, talking heads on the box or speculation taking place around the nearest water cooler. Does no attack mean that no attacks have been planned or all planned attacks thawed? A hard question to answer yet I am sure some with axes to grind and time to spend are trying to prove this is so. Bruce almighty has a few thoughts on this subject [ 1, 2 ] and many more.

I think this a very good point. We don't really know how many plots are stopped by good pre-emptive police work. It is not clear to me whether publicizing the stopped-plots has a good or bad effect on people's "terror". We have a very intense knowledge of those that are not stopped, however. It is these (whilst statistically insignificant) which inevitably colour our thinking.

How do we objectively assess the effectiveness of measures like making me take my laptop out of its case at every security checkpoint? Is screening for laptop bombs a cost/convenience effective measure? I have no clue. I do know it is costly and inconvenient, but I don't know the payback.

Crime but not terror. Not quite the Vancouver I knew from the mid '80s but never the less a good listen if you can access the bbciplayer but given a lotto win it is one of the few places I would still spend quite a lot of time in.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy T:
Crime but not terror. Not quite the Vancouver I knew from the mid '80s but never the less a good listen if you can access the bbciplayer but given a lotto win it is one of the few places I would still spend quite a lot of time in.

Not so much "terror" in Vancouver at the moment, but just increasing inconvenience caused by the VANOC and the IOC as the preparations for the festival of slip-slidin sports ramps up. There seems no limit to the things they they can do in the name of "security". The bill for this (that they admit to) is now $1Bn. That sort of money would help a lot of people in the downtown east-side.