Firecracker on Plane was terrorist attack!

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
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.

I've answered that earlier. Two reasons; it seems to work, and if it makes people feel better / less terrorised, it has value.

Consider the comments if there was no visible screening of eg. laptops, shoes etc. I'd rather have a bit of inconvenience than be a lot dead.

I think the real issue here is about political/opportunistic use of acts of aggression.
There are reasons pushing kamikaze.
Eradicate the reasons = end of the suicide attacks.
But, this would involve deeply revising western lifestyles, and reequilibrate balance of powers worldwide, again at disadvantage of dominant countries.
Who would ever do that?
So, it MUST be given a strong signal of "anti-terrorist" activity, to keep political consensus, who cares if the action is ineffective in effectively fighting aggressive deadly actions? The "really effective" measures are out of question anyway . . . it is a complicated world . . . and "wrong" and "right" are not always as they seem at first sight.
The trivial observation about insignificant statistical probability of dying under suicide attack raises many issues apparently not directly involved. There is much more in it in fact. Dying into a car accident is a "built in" price to pay to western life style (as it is I mean, since there could be other variations, but this is another story) . . . and dying into a suicide attack, in the end, is exactly the same thing (parenthesis is the same).

Just my own POV

Kind Regards
Andrea

quote:

There are reasons pushing kamikaze.
Eradicate the reasons = end of the suicide attacks.
But, this would involve deeply revising western lifestyles,

This is naive. It presupposes that all terrorists have altruistic motives.

Likewise the use of "western lifestyle" linked to car accidents. Try living in the Middle East and tell me who is more passionate (and pathetic) when it comes to driving!!

Cheers

Don

I am interested in what the new security measures at airports will involve. Assuming the threat is from some sort of malleable explosives being moulded around a terrorist's genitals, will I have to have my groin felt for each flight?

I am interested to know when it would become statistically un-acceptable - as in just haow many more need to die in airport / plane terrorism before the statistics say no we need the checks to continue - increase? In other words - when did the taking of human life become a mere 'stat'?
If it means there is a lesser chance of someone else dieing in a terror attack then I am perfectly happy to have my laptop checked and walk the 30m required in socks, it is hardly a major inconvienience on that level?

Is what you see what you get? more

quote:

Originally posted by Steve2701:
I am interested to know when it would become statistically un-acceptable - as in just haow many more need to die in airport / plane terrorism before the statistics say no we need the checks to continue - increase? In other words - when did the taking of human life become a mere 'stat'?
If it means there is a lesser chance of someone else dieing in a terror attack then I am perfectly happy to have my laptop checked and walk the 30m required in socks, it is hardly a major inconvienience on that level?

Whether we like it or not, all safety and security is a trade-off. As a society, the US accepts 40,000 deaths per year on the road. They don't like it, bu they accept it. The evidence is that they could reduce this (make drivers and passengers wear crash helmets, for example), but we choose not to as it is too costly and/or inconvenient.

As unpalatable as it may seem, saving human lives is always a trade-off. As a society, we don't allocate infinite resources (personal and public) to it. Statistics, whilst seeming "cold" help us make the best decisions to save the most lives with the resources available. The alternative; to base these decisions on emotions and on what sells newspapers and wins elections is abhorrent.

I'm well aware of trade offs in human life - we all do that every moment of our lives one way or another.
I think you would find that IF the quoted figure of 40,000 deaths on the road were all brought about by murder - (which is what we are talking about with terrorists)then something rather more drastic would be done.
So - the answer to my question is - statistically what level of human life loss needs to be attained to statistically justify folk having to take your shoes off and have your laptop put through an xray machine.
Last time I looked murder had a zero tolerance prety much worldwide.
Statistics have no place in airport security as far as i'm concerned - which is what this is all about - not driving or travelling in general.
I don't base my decisions on emotions - I just want to fly in the knowledge that everything has been done that is possible to ensure I get to my destination in one piece - and not had an attack made on my life. If that means getting to an airpot earlier, go through a bunch of security - so be it.

40,000 murders would indeed get a different response. Not sure it is logical, though. A death is a death. We should be outraged.

Airport security is STILL a trade-off. Safer still would be that we all travelled naked with no carry-on items and full-body x-rays to make sure we didn't have a bomb up our arse.

You can't possibly mean "everything has been that is possible". No, you mean, "everything has been done that I consider a reasonable trade-off between security and cost/practicality/humiliation/delay". I would say the same thing. It is simply that my "trade-off" point is different to yours. I look at the statistics, note that the risk is trivial, and conclude that making me take my shoes off is stupid. I'll take the risk. That's just me. I consider the risk to be trivial. I am not scared to travel on a plane full of people who haven't taken their shoes off. I may be proven wrong and blown out of the sky, but I like the odds of that NOT happening.

quote:

If that means getting to an airpot earlier, go through a bunch of security - so be it.

Does that mean you are willing to be strip-searched each time, as implied by Doc's point about maleable explosives wrapped around genitals etc etc?. What about NO hand luggage, and EVERY piece of hold baggage being opened by security and re-packed.

No problem at all if that is your view. But how many others do you think will be willing to succumb to such security measures?

Cheers

Don

Odds of Being a Victim

A salient article, given our current discussions.

Editorial on Security

An interesting read.

The info stats do not say what the number of incidents there would be if there was no airline security. 1 a week, 2 a week - etc until there were no more candidates to carry on the bombs.??

quote:

Originally posted by Derek Wright:
The info stats do not say what the number of incidents there would be if there was no airline security. 1 a week, 2 a week - etc until there were no more candidates to carry on the bombs.??

True enough, but we get a feel for this by making the perfectly reasonable assumption that would-be terrorists will choose another, less well secured target if the airport security is thwarting their plans. Or assume that they will come up new types of attacks on planes that can get through security (like Mr Sizzlepants who was the origin of this thread, did).

Fact is, these alternative attacks are also (thankfully) very rare and the statistical risk from them is also trivial. This not suggest that the actual attacks themselves are not horrific and absolutely abhorrent.

quote:

Does that mean you are willing to be strip-searched each time, as implied by Doc's point about maleable explosives wrapped around genitals etc etc?. What about NO hand luggage, and EVERY piece of hold baggage being opened by security and re-packed.

If it reaches this stage I guess I will be looking to see just how important my air travel is.

quote:

If it reaches this stage

I thought that in your view, it already had reached the point where EVERYTHING needed to be done?

Perhaps we are all recognising that safety/security DOES have have a price/practical limit of acheivability.

Cheers

Don

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. (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.

I utterly agree with Winky's comment. As a tax payer, I am sick to the back teeth of the ever increasing levels of "security" employed for my own good. We need to wake up in the UK (and elsewhere) and defend our freedoms which are being steadily eroded. CCTV anyone.....

quote:

Originally posted by lightning canadian:

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. (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.

I utterly agree with Winky's comment. As a tax payer, I am sick to the back teeth of the ever increasing levels of "security" employed for my own good. We need to wake up in the UK (and elsewhere) and defend our freedoms which are being steadily eroded. CCTV anyone.....

Well said. Don't you just love the smokescreen all this blather about increased security devices throws up.

Fact remains that a person already of "concern" boarded a plane with a ticket paid for in cash and with little or no luggage. Not exactly one for Sherlock Holmes you would have thought. I can't see that giving such incompetent security another toy would make Jack shit difference to that. The weakest link is still the people performing the task. There is no magic technical solution. The next nutter is likely to have a bomb sown into them or ingested in some way - the scanners that already struggle with liquids or plastics will be of no use. Meanwhile the terrorists win by bringing everything to a standstill and making it impossible to live the freedom we are supposed to be protecting.

But no. We are so up our arses when it comes to effective selection of individuals for closer scrutiny, we would rather waste time and money screening people who pose no threat.

Joe

Its called "deterrence", Joe.

The logical extention of your argument is to remove any kind of physical screening.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Its called "deterrence", Joe.

The logical extention of your argument is to remove any kind of physical screening.

Not true Mike, suggest you re-read. My point is that we are afraid to effectively screen for fear of upsetting minorities. Instead we put our hopes into ineffective "one-size" screening and waste huge amounts of time and effort, while achieving the terrorist's aim (maximum disruption and reduction of freedom) for them.

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bibb:
But no. We are so up our arses when it comes to effective selection of individuals for closer scrutiny, we would rather waste time and money screening people who pose no threat.

Joe

Joe, this is the point I replied to.

Profiling may well be introduced, but the implications of screening people who might physically "look" like terrorists are pretty obvious. To screen everybody is deterrence.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bibb:
But no. We are so up our arses when it comes to effective selection of individuals for closer scrutiny, we would rather waste time and money screening people who pose no threat.

Joe

Joe, this is the point I replied to.

Profiling may well be introduced, but the implications of screening people who might physically "look" like terrorists are pretty obvious. To screen everybody is deterrence.

Mike,

Not a case of screening people who 'look' like terrorists. More a case of using the information we already have and not wasting time screening people who quite obviously are not. Watching a couple of jobs-worths taking an elderly ladies crutches to bits at Luton recently was a typical indication of the type of nonsense that a 'one-size' method creates. Along with a totally false sense of security.

Profiling and properly attaching all available intelligence to individual's passport and ID details would have prevented this latest guy even getting on the plane. Standing him in front of a scanner with slightly thicker under-pants and liquid that it can't distinguish from body fluid, would not.

The idea that we should spend millions, and inconvenience everybody to cover for an inability to use the better methods of detection that we already have, is just daft. A case of being seen to be doing something - gone mad.

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

Originally posted by Andrea:
There are reasons pushing kamikaze.
Eradicate the reasons = end of the suicide attacks.
But, this would involve deeply revising western lifestyles,

This is naive. It presupposes that all terrorists have altruistic motives.
Cheers
Don

I don't know . . . . I mean, terrorists do have their reasons . . . think about Iraqi war . . . dozens of thousand (at least) of innocent civilians killed on the assumption of mass destruction weapons . . . and the assumption was totally wrong and false . . . if 50.000 USA citizens, or Italians citizens, where killed on the assumption this was bearable, that is to say unavoidable "collateral damages" necessary to achieve a greatest more dignifying result . . . I mean, try to really think about it . . my wife . . . your children . . . what would you say? Where would be the line, the boundary, b/w a civil music lover, like me, and you, and a blood thirsty killer?
Try to put ourselves in other people's skin is always painful, difficult, uneasy, sometime disgusting . . but I personally find it enlightening . . at times . .
sow the wind and reap whirlwind
cheers
Andrea

quote:

Try to put ourselves in other people's skin is always painful, difficult, uneasy, sometime disgusting . . but I personally find it enlightening . . at times . .
sow the wind and reap whirlwind

Tiger agrees.