Terrorism Scenario

[Azadre]

What do you think the response would be if the following were to occur during 2010?

*Middle Eastern terrorists hijack a U.S. jetliner bound for Italy. A two-week drama ensues in which the plane's occupants are split into groups and held hostage in secret locations in Lebanon and Syria.

*While this drama is unfolding, another group of terrorists detonates a bomb in the luggage hold of a 747 over the North Atlantic, killing more than 300 people.

*Not long afterward, terrorists kill 19 people and wound more than a hundred others in coordinated attacks at European airport ticket counters.

*A few months later, a U.S. airliner is bombed over Greece, killing four passengers.

*Five months after that, another U.S. airliner is stormed by heavily armed terrorists at the airport in Karachi, Pakistan, killing at least 20 people and wounding 150 more.

*Things are quiet for a while, until two years later when a 747 bound for New York is blown up over Europe killing 270 passengers and crew.

*Nine months from then, a French airliner en route to Paris is bombed over Africa, killing 170 people from 17 countries.

Welcome to 1985 -- We've been dealing with the same threats for decades. But we used to be a lot calmer about it, less self-defeating.

http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_...ity/index.html

[dmc89]

Well, it wasn't as bad back then because most Americans didn't care or were unaware of these events back then (9/11 was very in your face).

Also, no internet as well different non-24 hrs news cycle/mass media distribution led to less sensationalism and more centrism when interpreting and discussing the news.

Lastly, in the absence of the Soviet Union which allowed the military-industrial complex to flourish, we have had a more subtle and nefarious return of fear-politics under the neo-conservatives and their hawkish Israeli counterparts.

[Lynus302]

Originally Posted by Azadre Welcome to 1985 -- We've been dealing with the same threats for decades. But we used to be a lot calmer about it, less self-defeating.

And that obviously worked so well.

[Air Langhi]

Originally Posted by Lynus302 And that obviously worked so well.

More people die from eating fast food.

[Lynus302]

Originally Posted by Air Langhi More people die from eating fast food.

Word. The great Big Mac attack of 2001 was a real bitch.

[NMS is the Best]

Originally Posted by Lynus302 Word. The great Big Mac attack of 2001 was a real bitch.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans die each year as a result of Cardiovascular diseases.

[AroundTheWorld]

What kind of an argument is this?? "A lot of people die over time from eating unhealthy stuff, so who cares about those who die from terrorism?" Seriously...really?

And as to the incidents mentioned in the original post, I am old enough to remember most of those. So...terrorism existed before 9/11. That's not new to me. What is the one thing all the terrorists mentioned in the OP and the 9/11 terrorists have in common?

The article actually forgets some more acts of terrorism in the same timespan, like for instance the hijacking of a cruise ship (Achille Lauro) by islamic terrorists who threw an old Jewish man in a wheelchair over board.

So the "point" of the article is to say that airline security goes overboard nowadays. Well, as a frequent traveler, I find the TSA people and their equivalents in other countries incredibly annoying sometimes. Yet, it seems like some terrorist acts have been thwarted because these procedures exist. Don't blame airline security, blame the ideologies that have made this degree of security measures necessary in the first place.

[Lynus302]

Originally Posted by NMS is the Best Hundreds of thousands of Americans die each year as a result of Cardiovascular diseases.

Osama bin Cheeseburger is not the problem.

Jihad, insane religious views, and death to infidels are not byproducts of hydrogenated fat.

Of all the insane parallels I've read on this bbs....

[Steve_Francis_rules]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld What is the one thing all the terrorists mentioned in the OP and the 9/11 terrorists have in common?

Given your history here, I'm sure you're looking for the answer "they're all Muslim." So I'm just going to point out this part of the article you must have missed:

Even before that crisis ended, Sikh extremists would blow up Air India Flight 182 off the coast of Ireland -- the deadliest civil aviation bombing in history.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Steve_Francis_rules Given your history here, I'm sure you're looking for the answer "they're all Muslim." So I'm just going to point out this part of the article you must have missed:

1) I said "mentioned in the OP", not "mentioned in the article".

2) What exactly does it change for you that one or two (the article also talks about a bombing of a Korean airlines jet, this was done by North Korea) out of many instances happens to not be done by islamists? So you feel it is necessary to point out the exception to the rule? What does that change? It's still very much a noticeable fact that the vast majority of these happened "in the name of islam", even 25 years ago. So if anything, all the BS about these things only being a reaction to the US being in Iraq and Afghanistan and this nonsense is proven wrong.

[jo mama]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld Yet, it seems like some terrorist acts have been thwarted because these procedures exist.

the only thing the TSA has thwarted is the 4th amendment.

as for the body scanners, wasnt it convenient how right before they were about to roll them out we had the underwear bomber to scare everyone into accepting them? former fatherland security chief chertoff advocated for them in his government position and then went to work for the company that makes them - that needs to be investigated too.

as for the underwear bomber, the airport in amsterdam had 19 body scanners in use at the time and he did not have to go through one. he was brought to the airport by a yet unidentified man, paid cash for a one way ticket and he also did not have a passport - he was able to board w/ a visa. also his father had told the u.s. embassy in nigeria that he might be trying to commit an act of terrorism. despite all this he was still able to board the plane. also, several passengers on the plane reported seeing a 2nd man calmly videotaping the whole incident, but the fbi never id'ed or questioned him. who was this person?

if 'authorities' has been following through on the procedures already in place the underwear bomber would have never gotten on the plane. but the response from 'authorities' is not to actually follow though on procedures already in place, but to start naked body scanning and sexually molesting everyone including grandmas and little kids...its disgusting and the fact that so many americans are fine w/ this is very scary - we are heading down a dangerous path in this country.

[AroundTheWorld]

jo mama, I share some of your concerns (and I hate the attitude of some of the untrained and uneducated TSA people), but let me ask the other way around, what would your proposed solution be? No security checks? I think we do need them, as much of a nuisance they are, no?

[jo mama]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld jo mama, I share some of your concerns (and I hate the attitude of some of the untrained and uneducated TSA people), but let me ask the other way around, what would your proposed solution be? No security checks? I think we do need them, as much of a nuisance they are, no?

nobody is claiming that we have 'no security checks' - its an issue of the government going too far w/ these new procedures.

i would abolish the TSA altogether, remove the body scanners and end invasive and demeaning pat-downs. keep the metal detectors and screening of carry-on luggage. i would not object to secondary screening for persons of suspicion, but to be feeling the crotches of little 4 year old girls and making my 60 year old mom go through a body scanner is over the line.

and again, the procedures were already in place to stop people like the underwear bomber - just like 9/11 - the failure wasnt due to lack of tools to prevent - it was due to lack of people doing their job properly in the first place.

personally, im done flying and if this country continues down this path i will be looking to get out w/in the next 5 years.

[Azadre]

The problem with the recent increase in security measures is that I see it as someone getting paid, rather than decreasing the likelihood of a terrorist incident.

For example, the makers of the new full body scanners must be making tons of cash. What better way than to have a mandate requiring every airport in the country to own and maintain these devices. And you do not want hold-ups, so every gate will have 3-10 machines.

And it is increasingly evident that all this security does not actually decrease the incidence of a terrorist attack from occurring. Rather, they're just inconveniences for the theater of safety.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by jo mama personally, im done flying and if this country continues down this path i will be looking to get out w/in the next 5 years.

Well, if you are done flying, I guess that leaves Canada, Mexico, or a ship .

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally Posted by Lynus302 Osama bin Cheeseburger is not the problem. Jihad, insane religious views, and death to infidels are not byproducts of hydrogenated fat. Of all the insane parallels I've read on this bbs....

Actually it depends if the goal is to save lives or not. Poor health is far more of a threat to the average American than terrorists.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by Azadre The problem with the recent increase in security measures is that I see it as someone getting paid, rather than decreasing the likelihood of a terrorist incident. For example, the makers of the new full body scanners must be making tons of cash. What better way than to have a mandate requiring every airport in the country to own and maintain these devices. And you do not want hold-ups, so every gate will have 3-10 machines. And it is increasingly evident that all this security does not actually decrease the incidence of a terrorist attack from occurring. Rather, they're just inconveniences for the theater of safety.

You might be right about that. I am not sure if we need this degree of checking. But someone stands to make a lot of money from it, I think you have a point there. And if it is true that the guy who pushed this on the political side then went to make money from it himself, it does leave a bad taste. I will agree with that as well.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by FranchiseBlade Actually it depends if the goal is to save lives or not. Poor health is far more of a threat to the average American than terrorists.

This comparison is just so incredibly dumb.

[Depressio]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld What is the one thing all the terrorists mentioned in the OP and the 9/11 terrorists have in common?

I have a question.

Let's operate on the premise that Islam breeds terrorism. Something about it makes its members more radical and more prone to terrorism. That known, what do you propose we should do about it?

[rhadamanthus]

Old, but still accurate.