More flying 'security' mega-idiocy

[Greenday]

Have there been any instances of that happening in the US, on an airliner? The only instances I can think of are using a child bomber to attack ground forces in the Middle East.

You don't see how easy it is to go from having some kid loaded with bombs being blown up at a police station to one getting on a plane because everyone thinks children are sacred and are somehow exempt from rules?

[Andara Bledin]

I know, right? It's not like Al Qaeda and other such groups have used child bombers before. Wait, yes they have.

That's ignoring the entire fact that they were stopping the girl alone, not her family. But it was a nice strawman attempt.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

You don't see how easy it is to go from having some kid loaded with bombs being blown up at a police station to one getting on a plane because everyone thinks children are sacred and are somehow exempt from rules?

That logic is flat-out HWFO (hand-waving freaking outery). A bomb powerful enough to rupture an aircraft's skin from the inside would be easily detectible by passive measures already in position. A kiddy-bomb would never be allowed to board the plane in the first place.

Calling them back off the plane after they've already gone through the paranoid screenings is just plain stupid, no matter who is at fault.

[Greenday]

That's ignoring the entire fact that they were stopping the girl alone, not her family. But it was a nice strawman attempt.

^-.-^

What good are the people triggering the bomb if the bomb isn't there to trigger?

I'm not saying the No Fly List is good the way it is or that what the airline did was right. But we've already seen in this thread the sense of entitlement people have when it comes to children. We see it when it comes to elderly people too. People believe they deserve a free pass when there's no reason in the world to give them a free pass.

[Andara Bledin]

What good are the people triggering the bomb if the bomb isn't there to trigger?

Now here's a comment that comes straight from lala land.

There's nothing special about that particular 18-month-old that would make her any better vehicle as a bomb-baby than practically any other 18-month-old. To even think that it's remotely rational to block the child alone shows a complete and utter inability for anyone involved to think logically.

Seriously, that entire sentence is irrational to the point of absurdity and I'd be ashamed were I to utter its like.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

What good are the people triggering the bomb if the bomb isn't there to trigger?

...blindly ignoring the possibility that the parents could have removed the bomb (since it's hypothetically small enough to fit on an 18-month-old without notice) before sending the child back out.

I'm not saying the No Fly List is good the way it is or that what the airline did was right. But we've already seen in this thread the sense of entitlement people have when it comes to children. We see it when it comes to elderly people too. People believe they deserve a free pass when there's no reason in the world to give them a free pass.

What free pass, though? The kid already went through the security checkpoints - both the standard checkpoint that has been in airports since I was a babe, and the TSA "heightened security" checkpoint - without notice. What were they expecting to find?

There comes a point when you have to say, "Yyyyeah, maybe that's not the Melissa Blows-em-up we're looking for." Particularly when the parents don't seem to be suspected of anything.

[Nekojin]

Let's talk more specific scenarios, if we're going to go down this rabbit hole.

We're already implicitly assuming that someone could get the supposed explosives into the airport unnoticed, and possibly onto the plane. For what purpose? Blowing up a single airliner and a casualty count with a maximum of ~300 people on the airplane (citation: largest commercial jet is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner), with a chance of a dozen or so more when it hits the ground. Scenarios of hijacking a plane and using it as a guided missile are 1.) essentially impossible without an inside man, and 2.) don't require a bomb. No chance of an 18-month-old carrying out a hijacking, right?

So, suppose we're talking enough explosive to take out a Dreamliner in-flight. Or, if you prefer, a somewhat smaller explosive to take out a 747. Either way, they run the risk when going through security checkpoints of being discovered and stopped at the gate... where they can detonate the bomb anyway, and still have triple-digit casualties plus the added problem of taking out one terminal of an airport.

The same explosive could be put on a commuter train in any major metropolitan district in the US and have a similar body count, without having any risk of being discovered by paranoid para-police. Hell, put one of those on a Los Angeles Metro Rail line, and detonate when you get under Union Station for bonus slaughter, and the potential of collapsing several government buildings on top of Union Station. You could probably get an even bigger explosive on-board without notice, especially if you have several people working in concert.

Or if you're really intent on taking out an airliner, why not build a homemade SAM missile? Computers today are small enough and powerful enough that you wouldn't need all that much in terms of special parts to do it.

Why would a terrorist bother with bombing an airliner any more? The payoff is just not worth the risk, even if you take away the TSA. Without the ability to hijack the plane, there are much better targets to go after. Heck, Disneyland front gates at 10 AM on any Saturday.

[Greenday]

Now here's a comment that comes straight from lala land.

There's nothing special about that particular 18-month-old that would make her any better vehicle as a bomb-baby than practically any other 18-month-old. To even think that it's remotely rational to block the child alone shows a complete and utter inability for anyone involved to think logically.

Seriously, that entire sentence is irrational to the point of absurdity and I'd be ashamed were I to utter its like.

^-.-^

That entire response seemingly has nothing to do with what you quoted from me.

[ngc_7331]

What good are the people triggering the bomb if the bomb isn't there to trigger?

I'm not saying the No Fly List is good the way it is or that what the airline did was right. But we've already seen in this thread the sense of entitlement people have when it comes to children. We see it when it comes to elderly people too. People believe they deserve a free pass when there's no reason in the world to give them a free pass.

The kid had already been through security. You know, the whole take-off-your-shoes-empty-your-pockets-and-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-feeling-you-up security that everyone goes through. Are you saying that airplane security is too incompetent to find a bomb?

[Greenday]

Are you saying that airplane security is too incompetent to find a bomb?

No, I'm saying that shit happens and people make mistakes.

[ngc_7331]

No, I'm saying that shit happens and people make mistakes.

Got it. So explain again why you are defending their mistake? I could see you defending them by saying "hey, they're only human and they fucked up" but you seem determined to find any reason why a toddler should be yanked off an airplane. And before you say you said no such thing...

I know, right? It's not like Al Qaeda and other such groups have used child bombers before. Wait, yes they have.

You don't see how easy it is to go from having some kid loaded with bombs being blown up at a police station to one getting on a plane because everyone thinks children are sacred and are somehow exempt from rules?

What good are the people triggering the bomb if the bomb isn't there to trigger?

I'm not saying the No Fly List is good the way it is or that what the airline did was right. But we've already seen in this thread the sense of entitlement people have when it comes to children. We see it when it comes to elderly people too. People believe they deserve a free pass when there's no reason in the world to give them a free pass.

[Greenday]

Impressive using a quote where I specifically said I don't agree with it.

[ngc_7331]

You said you didn't agree with the no-fly list or what the airline did in one sentence and then called people entitled because they don't want their kids groped or yanked of a airplane in the next and in your other postings. Do you agree with accusing a toddler of carrying a bomb or do you think it's as stupid as the rest of us but you just like taking the most widely unpopular viewpoint?

[Greenday]

Feel free to point out where I said the kid should have been pulled. You can't.

And yes, people are entitled for thinking kids should get a free pass through security.

No one accused this kid of carrying a bomb.

[Nekojin]

Feel free to point out where I said the kid should have been pulled. You can't.

And yes, people are entitled for thinking kids should get a free pass through security.

No one accused this kid of carrying a bomb.

And nobody but you has said, or even inferred, that the kid was getting (or should get) any sort of a free pass.