I’d appreciate it if someone would remind me of the incidents where airports have been targeted. ISTM that far more often airplanes have been targeted. Which I think is a valid distinction. These threats to planes have occurred via airports, because that is the easiest place to gain access to the planes. But if someone is not trying to get themselves or something onto a plane, IMO they are not all that much more of a threat than they would be anywhere else.
As someone suggested on the MPSIMS thread, I could stroll into O’Hare at its busiest time with a couple of duffel bags loaded with explosives, get into the middle of the thickest crowd near the check-in counters, and set them off. In my mind, every single person with a suitcase is more of a potential threat than this one unencumbered person was, blinking lights or no.
I consider personal privacy, freedom, and anonymity to be very important. Many if not most security measures infringe upon freedom and privacy to some extent - however small. My personal equation is that any infringement upon my freedom and privacy is warranted only to the extent that it is tailored and directed towards some specific objective. Regarding security, I feel too many infringements are aimed at achieving infinitesimally miniscule gains in security.
Am I the only person on these boards who feels this way?
What efforts to conceal the wiring? Did you look at those pictures? The wiring is exposed with no attempt to conceal it.
You seem to be implying that it is so unlikely that a person would have a bomb that has exposed wires and battery that we can discount people that do have exposed wires and batteries. Is this really your opinion?
I love you man. As for this thread, I think debates involving terrorism bring out teh stupid in many people. It looked suspicious enough for action to be taken, and it was. The girl was not let off, nor was she shot and killed. Everyone just chill…
And this is a telephone. Note the cords, the dark color, and the considerable weight. By your logic, there are no other telephones possible but ones that also feature cords, a black color, and being as heavy as a motherfuck.
Ravenman has, I hope, dispelled your ignorance, but let me tell you as someone who worked at an airport that we were always very aware that we were a prime target.
I saw links to 2 incidents (well, the first involved 2 related incidents), 22 years apart. The latest of which - I’m not sure what the heck it was, but I readily acknowledge this past summer someone crashed a car into the Glasgow airport terminal. I don’t think this MIT student had a car hidden under her shirt, but the photos are not entirely clear…
So what exactly is the basis for your being “very aware” that airports are a “prime target” of exactly whom?
I suspect that there is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy involved. Anything out of the usual - however minor - that happens at an airport is guaranteed huge press. If it can be related to potential danger the media eats it up because it is so easy to make the dramatic connection to 9/11. So the availability of such publicity makes them more of a target for kooks of all stripes and colors.
Whereas, if you actually considered out the number of people passing through airports worldwide on a daily basis, I’m not confident they are necessarily any more dangerous than any other place.
I saw a close up in the newspaper yesterday, the breadboard was attached to the sweatshirt with zip ties, the tape was holding wires to the breadboard.
Agreed. There is a reason that the security checkpoint is where it is – it’s where the people are getting on the airPLANE are separated from the people who are simply in the airPORT. THAT is where it would have made sense to detain (albeit with less force than was employed) the “suspect” – had she tried to go through the security checkpoint, which of course she did not, nor did she plan to.
Otherwise, we need to nearly kill every person carrying a “suspicious” bag or garment in any mall, or downtown park, or, or…
Your freedom to wear blinky lights attached to a breadboard? Is that what is being infringed upon? Would you feel the same way if she had just yelled (Ignorant of consequences mind you), in a discussion about a bad film, that she hoped she wouldn’t see that “BOMB ON THE PLANE?” It’s not quite the same thing, but it’s pretty close. She wore something suspicious into an airport and did not reply to the person at the information counter.
Now I’ll get a bit upset if whatever agency decides to throw the book at her with regards to punishment. It doesn’t seem that she did this as a hoax or with any malicious intent. Just a lack of thought. What I won’t do is get upset about any loss of freedoms with regards to this even though it means I won’t be able to wear my vest of Dynamite (pronounced Dee-Nah-Mee-Tay) brand black and silver long wick candles to the airport.
If there is one thing that drives me nuts about this message board, it is when people are too proud to admit that they are wrong, and somehow believe that attempts at clever statements, rather than fact-based rebuttals, will somehow salvage their standing. Here is another foiled terrorist plot targeting an airport, not an airplane. It is also from this summer.
I think I’ve provided ample evidence that terrorists are known to target airports. I wish you’d simply admit that you’re wrong, not because I would take any particular joy at being “proven right,” but because it is painful to watch someone use ignorance, lame attempts at humor, and blatant backpedaling to try to obfuscate their error.
There have been very many security alerts over the years. Al Qaeda aren’t the first terrorists in the U.K. Beyond that, I’m not going to be so stupid as to detail what little I know of security procedures.
I don’t know her, but she wouldn’t be the only one. I remember an incident where some guys from DU burned down the Outing Club’s cabin, because they thought the composting toilet was a fireplace.
Thanks. Now I can tell the guys at the gate where I work what to look for. :rolleyes:
What this woman did was at the very least stupid. I think they should charge her with everything they can charge her with to discourage other morons in the future.
Airports are prime targets for anyone who wishes to cause massive disruption, inconvenience, expense, or loss of life. This is simply because they have vast numbers of people moving through them, so any kind of strike action, protest, bomb scare, or actual attack has the potential to catch a lot of people. Logan apparently serves some 74,000 people per day. Heathrow serves over 180,000 people per day. Any big transit point with those kinds of numbers in a relatively small space is an excellent target. Look at the number of times London airports and railway stations have been attacked - they are far more at risk than the average supermarket or cinema.
Besides which, everyone should know that airports are not freedom of expression zones. Don’t do anything when visiting one that you wouldn’t do when visiting a prison, and you’ll be OK. :eek:
Guys, I’ll readily admit that airports are a more likely terror target than - say - my living room. But essentially my preference would have security measures somehow related to the likelihood and magnitude of the perceived threat.
The latest link says fuel tank farms were targeted. Sorry, Ravenman, but I see this as somehow distinct from the threat posed by a single person with no luggage in - or outside of - a terminal.
And I’m sure there have been security alerts at airports Q - same as the Sherwin Williams color coded scale-o-terror has gone up and down, causing cops and security guards to break out their combat boots and body armor. I readily admit that I am cynical enough to differentiate such “warnings” from credible evidence of an actual threat. I believe the current administration has gained significant benefit from creating an atmosphere of unfocused fear. I have no doubt many other folks will disagree and consider my attitude irresponsible.
If this woman was a threat, then every passenger with luggage is a threat. And that is what I dislike - being treated as a “threat” as I go about my business. IMO, that contributes to an undesireable social atmosphere. Feel free to consider me naive or worse.
In my preference, the security in this instance would have been more along the lines of a cop asking the woman, “Excuse me, miss, would you please explain what is on your shirt?” before pointing the machine gun at her. If she refused to respond to a direct question from a uniformed cop, that - in my mind - would escalate the perception of possible threat. But someone not responding to a question by an Andy Frain behind an information counter? Not in my book. The absolute abdication of any sense of scope is what I consider bothersome. Not all possible “threats” are created equal IMO, and not all require a maximum response.
I could imagine this woman being viewed as more of a threat in Israel, where there is a track record of people blowing themselves up in crowded public areas. And I’m not saying we should completely turn a blind eye to the possibility of such acts occurring in the US. But I don’t recall (and the links haven’t shown) such a history in the US.
I guess the unanswerable question will remain, have such attacks not occurred because of the successful security measures? Or would it be better to direct resources towards more realistic threats?
JKelly - I love that your post re: planes is your post #747!
Color me completely unsurprised that you can’t concede that airports, not just airplanes, really are major targets for random violence by bad people, and persist in further backtracking about comparing an airport to your living room. In the back of my mind, I knew that no matter how many cites I provide for violence targeting at airports, either you’d nitpick each one to death (something like, That plot was supposed to be carried out by men, not a 19 year old college girl! or That was a carbomb, not a sweatshirt! or Blame the media, who published these stories about threats to airports, because they’re just hyping something that doesn’t exist!) or simply claim that the number of these plots is insufficient to meet your arbitrary threshold of what constitutes a real threat.
So there’s no use for me to do more work providing links to cites to someone who cannot admit his error, so let me give you two more plots, and you can google them. Try “millenium bomber” and “1992 LAX shooting.” But I’m sure you’ll find reasons why those don’t prove you wrong, either, but merely prove that airports are bigger targets than your washing machine.
