Slashdot Mirror
Man Tries To Use Explosive Device On US Flight
reporter writes with news that a Nigerian man allegedly attempted to set off a small explosive device — possibly a firecracker — on a Delta Airbus 330 airliner bound for Detroit yesterday. "There was a pop and then smoke wafted through the cabin. A passenger then climbed over several seats, lunged across the aisle and managed to subdue the suspect, the eyewitnesses said. The Nigerian man was placed in a headlock before being dragged up to the first class cabin. Passenger Zeina Seagal told CNN that after the suspect was collared and parts of his burning pants were removed, flight attendants quickly grabbed fire extinguishers and doused the fire at his seat." The man has claimed links to al-Qaeda, though the investigation hasn't confirmed that yet. (They're not taking anything for granted given that his pants were literally on fire.)
I don't believe this terrorism BS. It was supposedly a man who was on the USA most wanted list. In the USA airplanes flights are almost waterproof and there were no alarms sound.
Either the US National Security Agency is a complete joke, which could be the case, or this whole thing stinks.
Here be signatures
Exactly. Generally people know who are going to be the "terrorists" and who are the average Joes. Its pretty obvious that the person who is Muslim is going to be more apt to blow up a plane where a generic white guy drinking a coke isn't going to want to. Yeah, we can be fooled, but on just about every plot this has held true.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Yep -- almost ten years ago. Yet we've had two terrorist attacks (Ft. Hood and now this) on US soil in the last year. Figure that one out.
"I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
Excuse me? A firecracker on an airplane is not a terrorist attack, no matter how much your government would like to claim it is and as much as your sensationalist news outlets want to say it is, it is not.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
(1) the aircraft had not landed so this was not an attack "on American soil;" and,
(2) the nutjob at Ft. Hood had been open and clear that he did not want to be deployed - to the extent of trying to buy his way out of the service. This is not terrorism - it is a mass murder by a man who should have been identified and stopped well before the Ft.Hood shooting.
(3) Your thinly veiled indictment of the changed political culture of the USA now requires that you be outed as the Glen Beck puppet that you are.
In keeping with the season, and - meeting the /. technology requirement - let's set up nail-gun stations with lots of 4x4x12' stock and have mass crucifixions of these morons....
Walmart PARKING LOTS FULL OF THE DEAD AND DYING: That's the USA!
2.5.2.1 Innocent passenger shot is actually an orthodox Jew praying in Hebrew; shooter's "hero mode" triggered by hearing something that wasn't English coming from someone who's not obviously a redneck.
2.6.1 Terrorist network hacks remote detonation device, explodes all air traffic simultaneously.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
As a submariner, what goods or services did you create? Have you ever heard of the broken window fallacy?
Yes, the United States does need some defense or someone will come and mess us up. It's debatable just how much weaponry is actually needed to accomplish this. Go read up on the broken window fallacy, and realize that the military are professional window breakers. A weapon is a dead loss of resources.
Again, yet another fallacy. Whenever there's the slightest weakness found in our nuclear deterrence system, there's always an outcry. An enemy might attack! For example : Oak ridge can't guarantee the nukes will go off if we don't manufacture a brand new line of atomic warheads.
Sheer idiocy. No enemy commander is going to attack the United States on the hope that our nukes won't detonate.
This is the reason for the submarine force, as well. Despite the fact that the whole concept is incredibly expensive and dangerous and not at all cost effective, the Pentagon has convinced Congress that we can't be sure enough nukes in armored bunkers would survive an all out attack. Thus, we submerge intercontinental ballistic missiles under hundreds of feet of salt water and move them around. Of course, for every missile aboard a sub, we could probably install 5-10 more land based ICBMs.
Anyways, who is being deterred?