If you thought bottled water was bad...

[Thorn]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

ya, i ment al Qaida, al Qa'ida, or al Qa'idah... so i cant spell foreign words without looking.. was i sposed to go on their homepage(im saying this good humoredly. i wouldnt recomend actually doing it, because that would get u arrested like that *snaps fingers*)

if thers a terrorist on the plane, then its probably gonna go down anyway, so why not give the pilot a gun to kill the guy first? its not like he wouldnt die anyway, so thers no murder charges involved, and if al qaida (spelled correctly this time) wants to sue, have osama come to court! seriosly, its time somthing changed.

wow.

ok, cue the comments from...

1. the mods - talking about your consistently poor grammar and spelling

<Jeopardy voice>
I'll take stupid "leet-speak" for 100, Alex, er, Deviant.
</Jeopardy voice>

sharxbyte, please read the Rules ASAP. You agreed to abide by them when you signed up for these fora. The above should give you some idea of the exact problems with your posts. Below is the exact Rule violated. If you have that many problems with typing, I would suggest that you download and install a spell checker for your browser.

Secondary Rule #5

5. Abbreviated English, ‘SMS’-speak, ‘leet-speak, or AlTeRnAtInG CaSe:
This section is directed to people that make posts like ‘ne1 evr heer ov a hack 2 break teh windoze? LOL’.
The official language on this board is English. If you want to be taken seriously you need to communicate clearly.
Some of our users aren’t native English speakers. This is fine. If you don’t speak English, do your best, and people may help you.
Its embarrassing when users from eastern Europe come here and speak better English than 16 year old High School students from Illinois.
‘If u type lik diz’ you are basically saying ‘I am dumb, please do not pay any attention to me, in fact please ban me as soon as possible since I bring nothing to the table’.

4. LEOs or other security experts - who i suspect would take issue with the notion that "if thers a terrorist on the plane, then its probably gonna go down anyway"

Agreed, and for several reasons. First as you and Noid pointed out, the average airline passenger's fear of terrorists since 09/11/01 has changed dramatically. One need only look as far as Flight 93, the Richard Reid case, or any other case where passengers have been even merely drunk and unruly. Since they learned that their survival as a group means being aggressive, passengers have constantly shown little fear in defending themselves as a group. Prior to 09/11/01 the passengers had been instructed to be sheep, and rightfully so, as it insured the greatest survival rate. Most passengers in hijackings did that and survived. However, once the terrorist tactics changed, the passengers changed their collective attitude about complying with the terrorist demands. Just look at Flight 93. Once they were informed that they had no chance of surviving the flight, the passengers fought back. Although, in that case it the information came too late, and it appears they were never able to regain control of the aircraft.

Arming pilots is not a bad idea, although generally pilots -by the nature of their seating- are in a very bad tactical position. And locking the gun away when they are at their most vulnerable is ludicrous.

Personally, I like the idea of arming the passengers, or at least a select few. Just like those sitting in exit rows who agree to open the doors in case of emergency, those seated in certain seats -chosen for maximum tactical advantage- could agree to shoot the first SOB who started harming the aircrew.

Realistically though, I doubt l Qa'ida considers airlines as a high priority target anymore. They have served their purpose. Like generals planning for the last war, the TSA's efforts are probably little more than a reaction to the last problem.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

wow.

ok, cue the comments from...

1. the mods - talking about your consistently poor grammar and spelling

2. the JFGI choir - telling you that the Al Qaeda homepage isn't the only place you could have looked for their name

3. the libs - reminding you that we don't live in soviet russia or north korea, and while the government is intruding more and more into what we look at online, they don't have the power to arrest you for viewing a web page.

4. LEOs or other security experts - who i suspect would take issue with the notion that "if thers a terrorist on the plane, then its probably gonna go down anyway"

heh, i'd break out the popcorn and watch this one, but i'm tired and have a trip coming up so i need to sleep.

[sharxbyte]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

do you mean Al Qaeda* or is this some guy you met on IRC?

* also acceptable would have been al Qaida, al Qa'ida, or al Qa'idah. geez, a group whose name has multiple english equivalents and some folk can't manage to trip over a single one of them

with the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act (which was an amendment to the 2002 Homeland Security bill) we had the potential for proper guns in the cockpit... not just stun guns. Congress has been surprisingly engaged on this issue (even folks like Barbra boxer were pushing to have it implemented properly and fully) but when the TSA fired Willie Ellison the matter got pushed aside pretty badly. More here about how the TSA quite plainly implemented the measure in a bald-faced attempt to discourage any pilots from being armed.

ya, i ment al Qaida, al Qa'ida, or al Qa'idah... so i cant spell foreign words without looking.. was i sposed to go on their homepage(im saying this good humoredly. i wouldnt recomend actually doing it, because that would get u arrested like that *snaps fingers*)

if thers a terrorist on the plane, then its probably gonna go down anyway, so why not give the pilot a gun to kill the guy first? its not like he wouldnt die anyway, so thers no murder charges involved, and if al qaida (spelled correctly this time) wants to sue, have osama come to court! seriosly, its time somthing changed.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

maybe it was alkaeda's idea

do you mean Al Qaeda* or is this some guy you met on IRC?

* also acceptable would have been al Qaida, al Qa'ida, or al Qa'idah. geez, a group whose name has multiple english equivalents and some folk can't manage to trip over a single one of them

we might as well keep a stungun in the cockpit

with the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act (which was an amendment to the 2002 Homeland Security bill) we had the potential for proper guns in the cockpit... not just stun guns. Congress has been surprisingly engaged on this issue (even folks like Barbra boxer were pushing to have it implemented properly and fully) but when the TSA fired Willie Ellison the matter got pushed aside pretty badly. More here about how the TSA quite plainly implemented the measure in a bald-faced attempt to discourage any pilots from being armed.

[sharxbyte]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

After two days without sleep, I start to twitch, and walk around like a zombie. I don't have any malicious agenda, I just want to sleep.

i know exactly how you feel. i was on a trip from peru back to california. the movie that they had on was 'sideways', but it should have been 'twisted' is ther a jist to that movie? all i got was drinking and and drunk morons with women... but then again i had been awake for like 40 hours. its just about as bad as staying up all night playing halo2 the whole time... yep i know exactly what your talking about.

[sharxbyte]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

you might as well wear a mask when u go to the airport... your just about as likely to get arrested...or maybe even less... anyway, i hope i don't meet on of those behavior police or whatever the people are called... its just somone looking for trouble or money... maybe it was alkaeda's idea so they could let bombers into airplanes...

we might as well keep a stungun in the cockpit...

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

It's not feasible for a threat actor to take the cockpit by force now that the doors are reinforced, however there are other ways. ... If you had hijackers executing passengers on a plane till the pilot agreed to unlock the door, you may see results.

well, i can understand the extreme duress that could be a part of that situtation and will admit that psychological considerations are quite a factor, but i would still be exceedingly upset to learn that a pilot gave in under such circumstances. even more so, however, i would likely be upset to learn that a whole flight of passengers didn't rise up and counter-attack. as you point out...

Of course this is why passengers need to be prepared to fight to the death if they end up in a situation like that because 'the enemy' has established their intentions. The 1970's/80's era modus operandi for hijacking is no longer the goal.

everyone knows this now, or at least should. and in the few situations where passengers have gotten involved they've done so with vigor. (of course most of these weren't truly terrorist attacks. richard reid's shoe-bomb comes closest, and the surrounding people beat him down and tied him up with relative deftness. on other occasions, rowdy or drunk air travelers have caused a scene and the resultant calls for assistance by cabin staffers have always been answered with gusto.)

i wonder if anyone could posit an iron-clad solution. is it one where the locks on the cockpit door are controlled by a remote party, say... on the ground? i wouldn't enjoy the thought of that so much. communication errors between tower and craft could certainly make for trouble. then again, the situation we have now... are spare keys to the cockpit kept anywhere in the passenger cabin? on the person of a flight attendant or sky marshal? what if both pilots have the fish for dinner, so to speak... is there any way of opening the cockpit door in a medical emergency that results in their joint incapacitation?

ah well, guess one doesn't need to dwell on this topic too much... the chances of such things are so very minute.

personally, i like the concept espoused by Bill Maher in his latest HBO special...

i'm gonna start "fly at your own risk" airlines. you can have your hair gel, you can have your lighter, you can have a fucking gun... how 'bout that? you can show up at the gate five minutes before the plane leaves and pay in cash like in the good old 1980s.

if there were no checked bags on such a flight and if you went through the normal security checkpoints that screen for explosives specifically, i'd feel pretty safe. (provided we had the same reinforced doors, etc. that we do now)

[goathead]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

Soma and a care bear t-shirt... How could I lose?

I find it funny that they are looking for agitation within a group of travellers whos experience from curb to curb between airports is nothing less than completely agitating.

I never did well saying "thankyou sir, may I have another" with sincerity in my expressions... much less the expression caused by loads of caffiene, indigestion, and the frightening humanity of Joe Public.

Once again, avoid checking the Halal meal... there is NO hummus at the end of the rainbow... only a loving search.

[MitchMitchem]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

Oh this is grand. Who wants to take bets for how long it take for me to be detained after flying back from an all night/day party? After two days without sleep, I start to twitch, and walk around like a zombie. I don't have any malicious agenda, I just want to sleep.

[jur1st]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

I approach TSA much the same way I deal with most traffic cops. Mostly with no expression of emotion. The only conversation I have is

"Yes sir"
"No sir"
"Taking my toothpaste will be just fine. I completely understand your in depth analysis of it considering I'm also carrying fifteen pounds of wire and electronics on the plane."

The author seems to lack the understanding that TSA employees, at least the ones who we actually interact with, largely follow their protocol and nothing else. One would think, and hope, that these specially trained profilers would be able to identify real danger as opposed to simply your average grumpy traveler.

Having flown extensively in Europe and given the special treatment everywhere (keeping a crystal Christmas ornament shaped like a snowflake looks like a 'throwing star' on the x-ray raises alarms 100&#37; of the time) I've found that while the security is no doubt more intense it is easier to deal with and more friendly. They are getting more information about whether you're a threat by having a brief conversation than simply looking through your bag.

[noid]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

of course, there is also the consideration that almost all of this is a load of nonsensical crap nowadays... since i cannot imagine anyone hijacking a commercial jet anymore. ever since they made the cockpit doors super-reinforced and kept them locked during flight, there is essentially no way for nefarious parties to take over an aircraft. the only real threat now is the oldest fear.. bringing a plane down completely with a bomb. even greater improvements to luggage screening technologies would be where i'd invest my money if i were in power.

Actually, I would disagree with that statement. Its not feasable for a threat actor to take the cockpit by force now that the doors are reinforced, however there are other ways. Pilots are human beings and vulnerable to highly emotional situations. If you had hijackers executing passengers on a plane till the pilot agreed to unlock the door, you may see results. Ya, in our comfy chairs and calm environments we can say that for the pilot to open the door in that situation would only guarantee the death of everyone on the plane and probably others if/when the terrorists reached their target. That said, I'm not sitting in the pilots seat listening to the sounds of people having their throats slit open.

Of course this is why passengers need to be prepared to fight to the death if they end up in a situation like that because 'the enemy' has established their intentions. The 1970's/80's era modus operandi for hijacking is no longer the goal. Used to be, the plane would end up landing somewhere, terrorists would make demands for money or the release of prisoners, a few people may die so the terrorists can prove they're serious, then they either release everyone and fly to Lybia or have the plane stormed by SF troops.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

i read this article earlier this morning. unfortunately, i feel that this reporter's heavily biased feelings against the TSA and gov't in general (feelings that many of us, including myself, have expressed with even greater vigor in the past) color the whole notion a bit heavy-handedly.

in some sense, these sorts of measures are what a lot of us who really know security have been talking about for ages... namely, getting rid of security theater (bottled water bans, surrendering one's shoes, no nail clippers) and implementing comprehensive threat detection and prevention.

like it or not, some degree of profiling can be and i would even say should be a part of such a system. where it falls flat is when some little module or procedure gets treated (either by the press or by those in charge) like a stand-alone solution. will looking at people's faces to see "micro-expressions" stop the next major terrorist attack? no. however, could highly-trained experts use a series of signs and detection methods to profile certain travelers as being more worthy of observation than others? i would say yes. everything, from a person's clothes to their hair to the number of bags they carry to, yes, even their attitude and expressions has the potential to say loads about them.

i am certain that casinos (i really wish some folks would give a talk about casino security, i find it fascinating... but i don't know how well that would go over at defcon, being in the heart of sin city) have whole checklists and methods of choosing where to focus the eye in the sky cameras... and i'll bet a lot of it is based on things like a person's perceived age, gender, companions, clothes, etc.

the airports and the TSA could, in my view, legitimately use certain profiling techniques to attempt to form a comprehensive overview of situations with travelers. the key word is comprehensive. i would be very upset if any agency actually thought they would detain people or subject them to questioning solely on the grounds of how they appeared to be feeling. i am similarly upset at this Newspeak reporter who imagines that they will be doing exactly that.

<additional rambling>

of course, there is also the consideration that almost all of this is a load of nonsensical crap nowadays... since i cannot imagine anyone hijacking a commercial jet anymore. ever since they made the cockpit doors super-reinforced and kept them locked during flight, there is essentially no way for nefarious parties to take over an aircraft. the only real threat now is the oldest fear.. bringing a plane down completely with a bomb. even greater improvements to luggage screening technologies would be where i'd invest my money if i were in power.

[Samurai®¥©]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

Yea, what would happen if everyone showed up disgusted?

Imagine everyone being happy - can you say "false positive"?

Can you sing, "Don't worry - be happy"?

[Schuyler]

Re: If you thought bottled water was bad...

Check out this interesting article about airport security

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20298840...eek/?gt1=10252

If I could please just suggest that we all start looking disgusted and afeared every time we have to drag our bags of miscellaneous crap through the security checkpoints?

Yeah, maybe we'll get detained, but it'll be worth it.

Show up an hour early for great justice!

[Samurai®¥©]

Check out this interesting article about airport security

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20298840...eek/?gt1=10252