Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 12/15/2010 1:00:33 PM EDT
They have spent billions upon billions trying to ''secure'' airplanes and airports from terrorists.  Do they think that the terrorists would choose to try and knock another plane or two out of the sky?  Do they think they are really that stupid?

Look at all the other targets around the US that could potentially destroy the economy.  

Shopping centers/strip malls/grocery stores. (scare shoppers if wide scale)

Gas/oil refineries, tanker trucks.  (Increase gas prices due to fear/speculation/etc)

Schools....  (more worry, parents keeping children home)


We spend so much wasting money trying to stop one or two nuts trying to board a plane, but seem to not even worry about anything else that could be a new and potential target...


What other targets out there you can foresee a 'terrorist' targeting?  Seems that something like a couple unibombers, or the DC snipers, or someone shooting up a couple tankers or refineries would put a bigger halt to the US economy and public than 9/11 did, if it becomes persistent (ie bus bombings in Israel).
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:02:20 PM EDT
[#1]
Because the .gov can't identify a problem until after it explodes.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:04:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:04:58 PM EDT
[#3]
The bad guys seem obsessed with taking down planes.

Don't know what it is about planes, but they love 'em for some reason.


Don't get me wrong, they are trying to hurt us other ways, but to them a plane is the best way.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:05:46 PM EDT
[#4]



Quoted:


Because the .gov can't identify a problem until after it explodes.


One of best lines I ever heard about the .gov:



"The government never acts until there is a crises."



"Ismael Jones" wrote that in his book 'The Human Factor'
 
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:06:30 PM EDT
[#5]
Because air travel is offensive to their 7th century religion?
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:09:27 PM EDT
[#6]
It's a good thing we're dealing with an apparently stupid set of terrorists. I'm not even that imaginative and I can think of all sorts of big, soft targets where they could do more damage than taking out an airliner. All of our airline focus is sort of like a Maginot line. If they had any brain cells functioning, they'd go right around it and attack somewhere else.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:10:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
The bad guys seem obsessed with taking down planes.

Don't know what it is about planes, but they love 'em for some reason.


Don't get me wrong, they are trying to hurt us other ways, but to them a plane is the best way.


I think that's part of my point.  Why SO Obsessed?  Man, if there was a half dozen of those crazy f@ck's in each of the 25 biggest cities and they did a sniper deal, or just shot some tracers into semi's hauling around gasoline, that would shutdown the country.   Granted, an airline attack was a huge deal, but it didn't affect every person's security after the fact that the attacks were over.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:11:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Rather than do an overall beefing up of security (starting with securing the damn border!) they choose to just go around stamping out fires, then drowning that area out untill the next little fire flares up.
They are perfectly content with playing "whack a mole" (ETA) except they keep hitting the same hole over and over again hoping that the mole will just happen to pop up in that very spot.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:11:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Because the .gov can't identify a problem until after it explodes.


This, then they overreact on a massive scale implementing security precautions designed, not to make you any safer, but to make you feel safer.

Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:12:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Another attack, using an airplane, would probably cripple us again. They're probably sticking to what's easiest, and what they know how to do best.

Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Because if a terrorist attack happens with a commercial airliner, it will bring bring our country to a standstill and damage our economy to the tune of trillions of dollars. Years back I read an assessment that the 9/11 attacks damaged our economy to the tune of something like $1.2 trillion to $2 trillion during the 12 months after the attack.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:43:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Because there are alot of ex .gov employees (Including Micheal Chertoff)now employed by the firms selling all the security equipment!!!!!!
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:47:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Baby steps. The same reason the antis are after "assault weapons."  Just one piece of the puzzle.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 1:55:54 PM EDT
[#14]
All those billions of dollars didn't stop 16 year old Delvonte Tisdale from stowing away in the wheel well of a commercial jetliner that flew from Charlotte to Boston.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/milton/2010/12/delvonte_tisdale_likely_fell_f_2.html

Clearly, if Tisdale had been a Jihadist, and had a working device, the results would have been catastrophic.

Are there other suitable targets besides airliners?  Sure, and plots have been uncovered, such as the NYC subway bomb plot:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/30/national/main7103523.shtml

Of course, there was the Times Square incident recently:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/05/nation/la-na-times-square-bomber-20101005

Has the gov't wasted the time, effort, and money in protecting the airlines at the expense of protecting other potential targets?  I can't say, but it is clear that the recent Jihadi failures, such as the underwear bomber, although partly due to luck, also illustrate that it is very difficult for AQ to assemble a team and deploy it to the US.  Many attacks have been foiled while still in the planning stages, while the majority of recent attacks that have been initiated were solo attempts and have failed, often due to improperly designed or built devices.

Since 9/11 it's been difficult for AQ to mount a sucessful attack in the US, and there are a variety of reasons for this, other than airport security.  We may never know all the reasons why AQ has failed.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 2:40:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Because there are alot of ex .gov employees (Including Micheal Chertoff)now employed by the firms selling all the security equipment!!!!!!


i believe that.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 2:45:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Based on my predictions about human guided airliner missles, I'm gonna think that the .gov should be watching out for fire services in high density areas.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 2:46:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Airplanes are high-profile targets. There has been a 'tradition' of airliner hijackings since the '60s and '70s. And the US will NOT take the 'extreme' measures needed to secure such a target after it has been taken. (Read up on how the Israelis and the Russians react.)

Lots of people can relate to air travel; fewer know anything about tankers or refineries; those targets are more 'local' and don't affect the public as much. Terrorism is, after all, about TERROR: affecting the mass consciousness. This is why the WTC was targeted. This is in fact why ALL the terrorist targets are chosen: they scare the hell out of people!

eta Believe me, the .gov is NOT solely focused on airlines! There is a HUGE effort being expended on securing ports, roadways, tank farms, etc. The reason you are aware of the airline efforts is because the MSM has made a big deal of them (this actually AIDING the terrorists by bringing it to the attention of the population!).

"The media is the right arm of anarchy!" –– Dan Brown, "Angels and Demons."
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 2:49:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Because .gov always focuses on the last identified  threat. When IEDs start going off on US soil, they'll refocus on that threat.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 2:55:27 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because there are alot of ex .gov employees (Including Micheal Chertoff)now employed by the firms selling all the security equipment!!!!!!


i believe that.


Me too....... money maker...... period.

The Republicans spread money around to there friends and the Dems and BO are "spreading the wealth" around to their friends.

PLUS, it has a side benefit........ We ...meaning ALL Americans are being trained to except ANYTHING in the name of safety...... SAFE SAFE SAFE..... Don't YOU want to be SAFE??

So, MONEY, POWER, and CONTROL.............   get used to it.

Link Posted: 12/15/2010 3:25:56 PM EDT
[#20]
What makes me laugh is all of the unsecured area (as far as checkpoints) you pass through in an airport prior to boarding the plane.

Doesn't seem like it would be hard to shoot a plane or two down from cell phone waiting lots, or corn fields next to airports, etc if you had the right hardware. Or shoot a bunch of people a la the airport level in COD MW2 (I hate using that as a reference, but for anyone who's played the game, you know what I mean - just walk in and start shooting). Cameras just let people know there is currently a problem, or provide good footage for the 11 o'clock news.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 3:32:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Stating the obvious, but you can't hijack a train and crash it into office towers.

Planes are fast (sort of), explosive, big, and have long range.  Kinda like big, people-filled, pilotable missiles.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 3:34:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
They have spent billions upon billions trying to ''secure'' airplanes and airports from terrorists.  Do they think that the terrorists would choose to try and knock another plane or two out of the sky?  Do they think they are really that stupid?

Look at all the other targets around the US that could potentially destroy the economy.  

Shopping centers/strip malls/grocery stores. (scare shoppers if wide scale)

Gas/oil refineries, tanker trucks.  (Increase gas prices due to fear/speculation/etc)

Schools....  (more worry, parents keeping children home)


We spend so much wasting money trying to stop one or two nuts trying to board a plane, but seem to not even worry about anything else that could be a new and potential target...


What other targets out there you can foresee a 'terrorist' targeting?  Seems that something like a couple unibombers, or the DC snipers, or someone shooting up a couple tankers or refineries would put a bigger halt to the US economy and public than 9/11 did, if it becomes persistent (ie bus bombings in Israel).


It's the illusion of security; security theatre.  It's got nothing to do with anything but politics.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 3:57:26 PM EDT
[#23]
People who count fly in planes.  Unlike most of the rest of us who live, after all, in "flyover land".

Bonus points––the planes can be crashed into something important, like a government building.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 4:08:59 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
They have spent billions upon billions trying to ''secure'' airplanes and airports from terrorists.  Do they think that the terrorists would choose to try and knock another plane or two out of the sky?  Do they think they are really that stupid?

Look at all the other targets around the US that could potentially destroy the economy.  

Shopping centers/strip malls/grocery stores. (scare shoppers if wide scale)
It could happen but would likely be more work than destroying the economy through a single large symbolic type attack- which is more in line with AQ's MO in the US.  
Gas/oil refineries, tanker trucks.  (Increase gas prices due to fear/speculation/etc)
There have been significantly ramped up truck inspections in light of 9/11 and various catastrophic MVAs. CBP has also obtained XRAY ecamination technology for points of entry. I don't know about oil refineries and storage facilities- I have read that the pipeline in AK is susceptible and has been vandelized in the past.
Schools....  (more worry, parents keeping children home)
The federal government has actually distributed lots of money to better secure schools/ restrict access. Our district was entirely redone last year- some changes are more noticeable than others.

We spend so much wasting money trying to stop one or two nuts trying to board a plane, but seem to not even worry about anything else that could be a new and potential target...


What other targets out there you can foresee a 'terrorist' targeting?  Seems that something like a couple unibombers, or the DC snipers, or someone shooting up a couple tankers or refineries would put a bigger halt to the US economy and public than 9/11 did, if it becomes persistent (ie bus bombings in Israel).


Link Posted: 12/15/2010 4:40:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
They have spent billions upon billions trying to ''secure'' airplanes and airports from terrorists.  Do they think that the terrorists would choose to try and knock another plane or two out of the sky?  Do they think they are really that stupid?

Look at all the other targets around the US that could potentially destroy the economy.  

Shopping centers/strip malls/grocery stores. (scare shoppers if wide scale)

Gas/oil refineries, tanker trucks.  (Increase gas prices due to fear/speculation/etc)

Schools....  (more worry, parents keeping children home)


We spend so much wasting money trying to stop one or two nuts trying to board a plane, but seem to not even worry about anything else that could be a new and potential target...


What other targets out there you can foresee a 'terrorist' targeting?  Seems that something like a couple unibombers, or the DC snipers, or someone shooting up a couple tankers or refineries would put a bigger halt to the US economy and public than 9/11 did, if it becomes persistent (ie bus bombings in Israel).


If you want to blow something up it's a conveniently mobile large store of energy.

That said, it's not at all clear that terrorists are focused on planes.   The government is.   That's not the same thing.
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 4:57:11 PM EDT
[#26]





Quoted:



What makes me laugh is all of the unsecured area (as far as checkpoints) you pass through in an airport prior to boarding the plane.





Doesn't seem like it would be hard to shoot a plane or two down from cell phone waiting lots, or corn fields next to airports, etc if you had the right hardware. Or shoot a bunch of people a la the airport level in COD MW2 (I hate using that as a reference, but for anyone who's played the game, you know what I mean - just walk in and start shooting). Cameras just let people know there is currently a problem, or provide good footage for the 11 o'clock news.
Much easier than that.  Get 4-5 dirkadirkas and rent some U haul trucks, fill with fireworks of your choice & then drive right through the Nashville airport chain-link fence and target the packed jets lined up on the taxi way.  Do it during the holiday season & you're going to get at least 250 per plane.  Now how about coordinated attacks like this @ 10 airports?  






Don't like that one?  How about the Golden Gate Bridge during rush hour with thermite & gasoline tankers at both ends?  Kinda suck?    














Fuck the TSA & 0.  Both with illusions of grandeur but realistically?  Smoke & mirrors...  












 

 
Link Posted: 12/15/2010 4:59:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
...because airliner attacks are something the bad guys want to pull off. Spectacular airliner attacks have a significant impact on the world and they've been successful at pulling them off for years. Other targets are not as easy to hit significantly as you might think.

Airliners remain fairly high on the AQ wishlist of targets.


A school or a mall would be ridiculously easy to hit.
Link Posted: 12/16/2010 1:35:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Because it it hard to fly a train into the Pentagon.
Link Posted: 12/16/2010 1:53:16 PM EDT
[#29]
While our gov focuses on airports and planes, the terrorists are planning something different, they'd be stupid not to. They know that the passengers are not going to sit back and let a plane be flown into a building again, they also know that our gov is all over air transportation right now, so they'll do something different next time and our gov won't be prepared for it. Plenty for them to exploit, our borders are unsecure, unchecked cargo containers in our ports, etc...
Link Posted: 12/16/2010 2:03:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
...because airliner attacks are something the bad guys want to pull off. Spectacular airliner attacks have a significant impact on the world and they've been successful at pulling them off for years. Other targets are not as easy to hit significantly as you might think.

Airliners remain fairly high on the AQ wishlist of targets.


Absolutely; and since aircraft have already been proven vulnerable the threat can't be ignored.

As much as I abhor the TSA's tactics, and believe them to be largely ineffective,  aircraft can not be left totally vulnerable in order that the enemy can destroy them at will and with regularity.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top