Shoebomber 2.0 in De-troy-it

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And another thing. Why did AQ claim responsibility for this? Why are they so proud about an amateurish fvck-up?

To show how slack security can get, and inspire others to try it.

For the loss of one expendable wing-nut, they're costing Western authorities millions, and one of their other one expendable wing-nuts might succeed. It's a win-win situation for them.

[DanS]

To show how slack security can get, and inspire others to try it.

For the loss of one expendable wing-nut, they're costing Western authorities millions, and one of their other one expendable wing-nuts might succeed. It's a win-win situation for them.

No doubt the act itself was advantageous to AQ. I was more interested in why they claimed responsibility for it.

[Dauphin]

I was just reading about the rectum bomber. That was a funny story.

[Drake Tungsten]

No doubt the act itself was advantageous to AQ. I was more interested in why they claimed responsibility for it.

Why wouldn't they claim responsibility for a plot that was one faulty detonator away from success?

[DanS]

Is AQ now settling for guys burning their nuts off?

Also, it appears that AQ is now accepting applications from agents who are real losers rather than the cream of true believers. A big step down from the 9/11 crew and the embassy bombers.

I'm disappointed in AQ -- the follow-up to 9/11 on American territory has been underwhelming.

[Drake Tungsten]

I guess you think yelling "bring it on!" will make you look tough, like your favorite president.

[DanS]

Substantive answers, please.

[KrazyHorse]

the average airline passenger is no more dangerous than the average Baltimore resident.

You're not making a strong case here.

Then you're going to have to explain why the police aren't scanning every Baltimore resident's possessions 6 or 10 times a day.

[KrazyHorse]

No doubt the act itself was advantageous to AQ. I was more interested in why they claimed responsibility for it.

Why wouldn't they claim responsibility for a plot that was one faulty detonator away from success?

Success? As far as I can tell a full detonation would have breached the outer hull, but wouldn't have come close to taking down the plane.

[KrazyHorse]

Think about this: what's your biggest worry when you fly?

1) The terrrrrists will get you
2) Some ******* security guard is going to **** with your possessions or detain you unnecesarily

For me, it's by far #2.

(Couldn't respond to this thread yesterday evening because I was afraid that writing about this while waiting in Logan airport would cause trouble for me)

[Arrian]

I think it's fairly clear that the resources we dedicate to trying to stop *******s from blowing up planes is a tad out of proportion to the threat when measured by how many deaths such things can realistically cause. Sure, ok.

Most people accept the possibility of dying in a car crash a lot more readily than being killed by a terrorist, even though it's a whole lot more likely. I assume that's got to do with (the illusion of?) control, coupled with the difference between an accident and an intentional act. People do not expect the government to prevent accidents the same way they expect it to prevent intentional harm (we do expect the government to prevent/mitigate accidents, but it's not the same). Rail against it if you will, Guy, but I don't think it's going to change.

I think we're pretty lucky they're still focusing on planes, actually...

-Arrian

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Is AQ now settling for guys burning their nuts off?

Also, it appears that AQ is now accepting applications from agents who are real losers rather than the cream of true believers. A big step down from the 9/11 crew and the embassy bombers.

There's all sorts. The UK July 2005 attacks saw losers with bombs. The attack on Glasgow airports was by fully-qualified medical doctors.

They all smell the same when they're on fire.

[rah]

I think we're pretty lucky they're still focusing on planes, actually...

-Arrian

I agree completely. Imagine if they detonate on a few trains, especially commuter trains. Think what the US would have to spend in an insane attempt to minimize the risk there, and the time waste for commuters. Then buses.
Or even some random car bombings. Remember the panic from that one sniper years back.

[Felch]

And another thing. Why did AQ claim responsibility for this? Why are they so proud about an amateurish fvck-up?

Because they still made the cowards in charge of America **** their pants.

[KrazyHorse]

Note that my previous example just had to do with comparing the risks from airliner terrorism to the risk of other willful homicides

When we talk about comparing to the risks from accidents, the new security measures are even more retarded.

Using my figures from before, 750k flying at any one time, 3000 deaths from terrorism per decade. A decade of flying is 750000*10*24*365 = 65.7 billion man-hours

3000 deaths at the current price on low-level risks to human life (6 million dollars per statistical life) is 18 billion dollars

The price of current risk from a man-hour spent in the air is therefore about 27 cents using these assumptions.

I don't know about you, but I'd pay 27 cents an hour in order to be able to use the bathroom, read and type on my computer while flying.