National Terrorist Threat Levels

[EyeKhan]

I even realise it might have been intended as an act of mercy, considering the locale.

Its conceivable that the flaming remains of an air liner crashing into a Detroit neighborhood might be mistaken for kids being kids.

[Flixy]

<yawn> You're the one that jumped all over that shit being all nasty. You make the claim, you should be happy to support it.

Yeah, but it seems odd the media doesn't manage to check their facts.

[EyeKhan]

Yeah, but it seems odd the media doesn't manage to check their facts.

Was that a joke?

[Flixy]

Was that a joke?

Are US media really thát crappy?

[EyeKhan]

Are US media really thát crappy?

Mostly. Yeah. What's your point?

[Flixy]

That this is saddening.

[EyeKhan]

That this is saddening.

You act like you've just heard something new. You do know that what we call news here you would call entertainment, right? And that's because nothing is worth anything in the US unless you can make a profit from it; in this case with advertisements. Hello? Been on a trip to Mars or what?

[Pop Tart]

I can see why they rose it, what with the US intelligence saying Britain has the biggest number of extremists of any Western country. And that xmas bomber being radicalised in Britain.

Apparently those scanners can't pick up everything and they're still not going to scan kids. Yeah because terrorists wouldn't dare use kids.

[Hazir]

What you mean? At Schiphol both children and adults will have to go through either the scanner or a full body search if they want to fly to the US.

[Pop Tart]

What you mean? At Schiphol both children and adults will have to go through either the scanner or a full body search if they want to fly to the US.

In the UK they said scanning kids breaks child pornography laws.

[EyeKhan]

In the UK they said scanning kids breaks child pornography laws.

Huh. Interesting. Being a scanner's got to be an intersting job.

[Flixy]

In the UK they said scanning kids breaks child pornography laws.

Used to, but they altered the machine. Basically now it uses an algorithm, and instead of showing the real scan, it takes out what is not your actual body and projects that on a standard body image. E.g. they don't see your naked body, they only see what you carry on them.

[Pop Tart]

Used to, but they altered the machine. Basically now it uses an algorithm, and instead of showing the real scan, it takes out what is not your actual body and projects that on a standard body image. E.g. they don't see your naked body, they only see what you carry on them.

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Is that just for kids or adults too?

Still the issue that they failed to pick up stuff in that huffington post article.

[Flixy]

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Is that just for kids or adults too?

Still the issue that they failed to pick up stuff in that huffington post article.

For everyone, to deal with privacy laws.

And basically, it's still only a surface canner, it can't look inside you. And it can't really see WHAT you are carrying either, AFAIK it only works on one, non-penetrating wavelength.

[EyeKhan]

For everyone, to deal with privacy laws.

And basically, it's still only a surface canner, it can't look inside you. And it can't really see WHAT you are carrying either, AFAIK it only works on one, non-penetrating wavelength.

The next and last step is going to be a bomb stuffed in someone's ass. And no I'm not joking. How the hell are they going to find that?

[Hazir]

Well, there are the full body scanners that actually do look inside you as well. They are already used on people suspected of being mules for drugs AFAIK.

[Flixy]

Yeah., but there are problems with using those on anyone. Expensive, time consuming, and the amount of radiation could go over someone's allowed dose if he is a frequent flyer.

[Lor]

The next and last step is going to be a bomb stuffed in someone's ass. And no I'm not joking. How the hell are they going to find that?

I wouldn't be surprised if someone has tried it. Plus it really doesn't paint a nice picture seeing some grab around trying to dig something out of their arse. Either way, a bag with KY might also be a telling sign.

[Flixy]

If they blow the bomb up while inside them, their body would absorb a lot of the impact though. Didn't that happen with the guy who tried to kill a Saudi prince with a bomb in his ass?

The resulting explosion ripped al-Asiri to shreds but only lightly injured the shocked prince — the target of al-Asiri’s unsuccessful assassination attempt.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...essons_learned

It's a constant race though, and the terrorists will always be able to be one step ahead by thinking of a new way. You can only make it harder and harder to find ways past security.

But let's be honest, you can never stop them. Even if you manage to make flying 100% terrorist-proof.. There are plenty of other targets. If you blow up a (subway) train effectively, it can cause a major loss of lives. And you can hardly screen everybody there..

[Lor]

If they blow the bomb up while inside them, their body would absorb a lot of the impact though. Didn't that happen with the guy who tried to kill a Saudi prince with a bomb in his ass?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...essons_learned

Genius!

It's a constant race though, and the terrorists will always be able to be one step ahead by thinking of a new way. You can only make it harder and harder to find ways past security.

Then again, all it takes is human error. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could sneak a bomb onto a plane.

Crazy really.

[Flixy]

Not just human error, you can't possibly protect against everything. All it takes is someone who thinks of an original way to execute an attack.

One big advantage is that by adapting quickly, the terrorists are forced to constantly change tactics, and prevent them from improving their tactics. This attack failed, and because the security is quickly adapted, they can't easily try it again with improved tactics. Same counts for the shoe bomber. And as security gets better and better, the devices used have to (generally speaking) become more complicated to produce and use, and smaller.

[EyeKhan]

Well, there are the full body scanners that actually do look inside you as well. They are already used on people suspected of being mules for drugs AFAIK.

I've never heard of these. But I have the same concern as Flix below....

Yeah., but there are problems with using those on anyone. Expensive, time consuming, and the amount of radiation could go over someone's allowed dose if he is a frequent flyer.

Nobody's been talking about radiation exposure yet. Curiously. But I have to think a scanner that can look through your clothes at your entire body, unless its using ultrasound or something, must be exposing you radiation. You watch, in ten years frequent fliers are going to start showing up with higher rates of some kind of cancer....

I wouldn't be surprised if someone has tried it. Plus it really doesn't paint a nice picture seeing some grab around trying to dig something out of their arse. Either way, a bag with KY might also be a telling sign.

As Flixy said below, some dude tried it in Saudi Arabia. My thought was the bomber would put the bomb materials in a balloon or a condom or several. Stuff them safely away, go through security and get on the flight. Then go to the bathroom, crap them on the floor or whatever, assemble the bomb and set it off right there in the bathroom. If you think about it, why'd the Xmas day bomber go back to his seat to set the bomb off? That was stupid.

If they blow the bomb up while inside them, their body would absorb a lot of the impact though. Didn't that happen with the guy who tried to kill a Saudi prince with a bomb in his ass?

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...essons_learned

It's a constant race though, and the terrorists will always be able to be one step ahead by thinking of a new way. You can only make it harder and harder to find ways past security.

But let's be honest, you can never stop them. Even if you manage to make flying 100% terrorist-proof.. There are plenty of other targets. If you blow up a (subway) train effectively, it can cause a major loss of lives. And you can hardly screen everybody there..

Yeah, this is the ugly reality. People are just too damn smart and resourceful, unless you have a draconian police state that watches and controls everyone all the time, someone who really wants to blow up a lot of people, is going to succeed. And as technology progresses, the ability to cause horrible damage is going to expand. Its a scenario Illusions was talking about a while back - some day an individual's going to be able to cause major damage to civilization if he feels like it.

Not just human error, you can't possibly protect against everything. All it takes is someone who thinks of an original way to execute an attack.

One big advantage is that by adapting quickly, the terrorists are forced to constantly change tactics, and prevent them from improving their tactics. This attack failed, and because the security is quickly adapted, they can't easily try it again with improved tactics. Same counts for the shoe bomber. And as security gets better and better, the devices used have to (generally speaking) become more complicated to produce and use, and smaller.

This is not comforting.

[Flixy]

Nobody's been talking about radiation exposure yet. Curiously. But I have to think a scanner that can look through your clothes at your entire body, unless its using ultrasound or something, must be exposing you radiation. You watch, in ten years frequent fliers are going to start showing up with higher rates of some kind of cancer....

The body scanners that are used now mostly work with micro-wave radiation, which isn't ionising radiation. So it has no effect on your dose and no proven health effects. There are also backscatter x-ray body scanners, but back-scatter requires very low levels of radiation. The dose is very low. If you want penetrating , see-through imaging, you need a higher dose though.

As Flixy said below, some dude tried it in Saudi Arabia. My thought was the bomber would put the bomb materials in a balloon or a condom or several. Stuff them safely away, go through security and get on the flight. Then go to the bathroom, crap them on the floor or whatever, assemble the bomb and set it off right there in the bathroom. If you think about it, why'd the Xmas day bomber go back to his seat to set the bomb off? That was stupid.

Yeah, this is the ugly reality. People are just too damn smart and resourceful, unless you have a draconian police state that watches and controls everyone all the time, someone who really wants to blow up a lot of people, is going to succeed. And as technology progresses, the ability to cause horrible damage is going to expand. Its a scenario Illusions was talking about a while back - some day an individual's going to be able to cause major damage to civilization if he feels like it.
This is not comforting.

The link I posted about the Saudi ass bomb attack goes into that as well, it's a good read BTW, not all parts of the plane are as vulnerable, not sure if the toilet would be the best place to detonate something. And at least if you force them to bring things niside body cavities they cannot bring very large bombs.

[EyeKhan]

And at least if you force them to bring things niside body cavities they cannot bring very large bombs.

Then they'll work in pairs. Or triplets. Where there's a will....

[Flixy]

Travelling in groups makes you easier to spot though! The point is, you can never stop them, just make it harder. The harder you make it, the fewer terrorist groups can execute something. But where there's a will, there's away, and even if airports are fully secure, there are numerous other targets.