On board bomb assembly

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ShoeshineBoy, Feb 8, 2004.

  1. Been wondering about the cancelled cross-oceanic, cross-continent flights recently? Here's a possible explanation:


    Terrorists building bombs in mid-flight?
    Intelligence indicates dry runs in attempt to blow up airliners

    Posted: February 8, 2004
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

    Islamic terrorists are trying to get past airport security screeners by placing only the components needed to assemble explosive devices onboard and then building the bombs in mid-flight.

    Intelligence souces believe they've already conducted ''dry runs'' of the new terror tactic on planes flying between the Middle East, North Africa and Western Europe, reports the London Observer.

    Middle Eastern intelligence services have warned Western agencies that scores of terrorists have been trained in the new tactic and at least 12 dry runs have been successfully completed in preparation for an attempt to bomb a transatlantic route.

    According to the paper, the warning is based on interrogations of Islamic terrorists captured in the Arabian Gulf and is corroborated by intercepted communications between terror cells and interviews with prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay.

    One of the masterminds of the suicide bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia last May, Ali Abd Rahman al-Ghamdi, is among those who have reportedly revealed the bomb-making plans. His statements prompted the Transportation Security Administration to issue a memo warning terrorists in teams of five might try to hijack commercial airliners using common items like cameras modified as weapons, reports the Observer.

    An FBI bulletin last November warned: ''Terrorists are considering the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) assembled on board to hijack an aircraft or, alternatively, destroy it over heavily populated areas in the event of passenger or crew resistance.

    ''Components of IEDs can be smuggled on to an aircraft, concealed in either clothing or personal carry-on items such as shampoo and medicine bottles, and assembled on board.

    ''In many cases of suspicious passenger activity, incidents have taken place in the aircraft's forward lavatory.''

    Concerns terrorists might assemble a bomb or another weapon on board airliners were reportedly a factor in last weekend's decision to cancel several international flights from Europe to the United States.

    U.S. officials warned specific flights on British Airways and Air France could be a terrorist target.

    ''We remain concerned about al-Qaida's desire to target aviation, especially international aviation,'' said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
  2. It is scary that there are so many ways to circumvent airport security.

    As mentioned in the article, a shampoo bottle can contain something other than shampoo.

    Making a crude bomb can be done with just a few ingredients that can be concealed pretty easily.

    Also. and when you have a plot involving several terrorists, that would seem to increase the chances of them being able to board a plane with different chemical and components.

    And while security in America seems fairly well stepped up, it seems less likely now that a targeted plane would be boarded here, like on 9/11.

    I was in Phuket, Thailand in September. My friend bought his 11 year old son a couple of toy guns. (I had never seen them before....but I guess they are a big thing now for). These shoot little plastic balls.

    These toys, when sold in the US all have the barrels colored orange, so they are more distinguishable as being toys. In Thailand, they don't have the orange tips. Looked like real guns.

    We got on the plane, and my friend thought the toy guns were in his checked luggage. They were in his carry on back pack.

    Now obviously they were not seen by the xray machines because they were plastic and not metal.

    But they sure would have fooled passengers.

    I know he would never have gotten them thought the check points at any American airport.

    But most airports are not American.

    We are vulnerable. Our intelligence agencies seem to be getting more and more effective. It is clear that we need to prevent these terrorists from even getting as far as the airports.

    At the airports, it seems too much time is wasted on random checks. My 70 year old mother in law was searched. Blond hair, New York accent. Travelling with her 20 year old grand daughter.
    Not a likely profile for being a terrorist.

    Better safe than sorry for sure. But still, better to be efficient than to waste time.

  3. That is amazing! Yeah, I got searched one time when my son was three! How many terrorists take out their kids with them?!?

    When they wanded us, my son went AWOL out of fear. I guess they can't "profile" though...
  4. Did you watch the Super Bowl?

    All we hear about is Janet's boobie.

    Why don't we hear about the security breach that allowed a man to get on the field of play and dance aound with only a G-string on?

    For the security departments at the Super Bowl who failed to keep that man off the field, the red herring of Janet's boobie was a lifesaver.

  5. If I were Al Queda, here is what I would do.

    I would find a terminally ill white Anglo Saxon man who had a family, and offer him millions to take care of his family if he went on a suicide mission.

    Or I would kidnap a white female Anglo and brainwash here ala Patty Hearst to go on a suicide mission.

    Then when we see that white people can also be terrorists, how can we racially profile?

    How did we profile after Oklahoma City?

    What we did is convince the people that it was not an "organized" act of terrorism, but a lone wolf or two.

    We need a single body like Muslim extremists to focus in on, as that allows us to have a common enemy and scapegoat to focus in on.

    This administration has done nothing to focus in on why so many people hate America and Americans.

    After WWII people around the world loved America.

    After Iraq people around the world hate America.

    Something is wrong here, but we won't admit we have something to do with it.

  6. stu


    Maybe that knowledge you have is not so reliable .....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3401823.stm

    It appears the Brit airport was payng attention

    Peace RS :)
  7. Glad to see that the Brits are paying attention. And it is disturbing to see that a gun got past US security.

    I guess it's all a numbers game. Nothing can be 100% effective.


  8. And if you were Brezinski, the guy who was at the head of National Security under Carter (it is him also that, what a coïncidence, has financed the Muslims in Afghanistan and so Ben Laden Terrorism) and now President of the Trilateral Commission - founded by Rockfeller - what would you do ?
    Don't have to guess he tells it himself in his book - everybody can find on Amazon:

    "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.

    Exerpt from here:

    "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)" [Why does he need to refer to this : answers following ...]

    "America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, <font color=RED>except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being.</font>" [Guess what this sudden threat is today ]

    "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, <font color=RED>except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."æ (p. 211) [Emphasis added] </font>[Guess what this EXTERNAL threat is today ]

    "...To put it in a terminology that harkens <font color=RED>back to the more brutal age of ancient empires</font>, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40) [working for the return to brutal age of ancient empires is not barbarian at all]
  9. If it wasn't written in a book by someone as important as him you would think that this guy is completely crazy no ? Well this guy has directed the politics of US and he is now continuing to do so internationally at the head of trilateral commission.

  10. And the Bush Administration's "tough" talk has been just that, TALK.

    Our Ports are so vulnerable, it isn't even funny and the Bush Administration still has yet to fund anything close to realistic in order to help our Nation's Ports get their security up to a sufficient level of security.

    We have 361 Ports to protect, 95,000 miles of navigable waterways to defend and 20,000 oceangoing vessels to keep an eye on. The Coast Guard is focusing on what it considers the nation's 11,700 most likely maritime targets of a terrorist attack.

    About 3,200 of these targets are on shore: Oil refineries, nuclear power plants, liquid natural gas facilities and hundreds of other hazmat type sites.

    The 8,500 others are on the water: Public ferries from Seattle to New York, barges and cargo ships that crisscross U.S. harbors and inland waterways, oceangoing tankers and freighters, etc.

    Nevertheless, the federal government has been spending about seven to 10 times more on aviation security than maritime security. For 2004, Congress has authorized the federal Transportation Security Administration to spend $3.8 billion on airport security and less than a half-billion for port security.

    Meanwhile, the FCC - - - over the Coast Guard's objections, sold the frequency that it needs to use in order to help monitor the movements and cargo of thousands of ships that enter our nation's ports each year - - - to a private company in 1998 for $6.8 million. The winning bidder, MariTEL Inc, now says that the Coast Guard can have the "essential" frequency back for "maybe" $20 million.

    The disparity in what is being spent on Airport and Aviation security and that of our Ports is obviously because cargo containers on a ship do not vote, but this difference just doesn't seem to equate the risk. Besides, a nuclear device is not going to get into this country via an airplane. It's gonna come in via ship.

    #10     Feb 8, 2004