Airport security officers around the nation have been alerted by federal officials to look out for terrorists practicing to carry explosive components onto aircraft, based on four curious seizures at airports since last September.....They come to Wisconsin and think they can fool us by making a bomb that looks like cheese? They test us with a dry run where they actually use cheese??? Bastards!
The four seizures were described this way....
- Milwaukee, June 4. A U.S. person's carryon baggage contained wire coil wrapped around a possible initiator, an electrical switch, batteries, three tubes and two blocks of cheese. The bulletin said block cheese has a consistency similar to some explosives.
July 24, 2007
Terrorism in Wisconsin... trying to trick us with bombs that look like cheese???!!!!
AP reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
61 comments:
What happens to the people who do this?
Well, some types of cheese can be particularly lethal. Port Sault or Limburger (both of whom smell like bad toe jam yet which strangely and weirdly taste good)can set you back on our heels.
Of course those are soft types of cheeses. A strong cheddar....who knows what kind of damage can be done by a firm dense sharp block of cheese?
Boy, we are jumpy today aren't we?
This was obviously just someone trying to build a better mousetrap.
This is the cheesiest plan I've ever heard of.
Actually, the whole article references a lot more than cheese. It's more than a little discomfitting. Strangely omitted from the article is what the people looked like.
Cheese it... it's Homeland Security!
Remember the movie Hope and Glory? There's a scene I love where the dad comes home on leave to London, with some German jam in a big tin can. The mother fears it's boobytrapped or poisoned because "They know we're mad for jam!"
What a friend we have in cheeses.
well, I think -- SHUT THAT BLOODY BOUZOUKI UP!
If they were also smuggling in some Two Buck Chuck, they had clearly come to blow up some academic departments as well! True deconstruction.
But were they deliberately offensive by using California cheese on a Wisconsin flight?
We should probably worry now when foreigners wish us the usual, “Havarti gouda flight on that Kraft.”
"Say cheeeese . . . " flash -- BOOM!
DHS annouces the terror threat level has been raised to Cheddar.
If the strangely un-named, not described gentleman had done that in FDR's time, FDR would have had him in front of a military tribunal in two weeks, had the Supreme Court rule 9-0 that unlawful combatants have no Habeas rights the week after, electrocuted him, and dumped him in a pit.
These sort of (please don't describe them for the sake of multicultural toleration!!) people are the scouts and intelligence agents that test for security vulnerabilities to prep for the "tip of the spear" of the group - the actual terrorists sent on the kill mission set up by others.
The cheese blocks, the design of the timer and detonation circuit are made such that if caught, the terrorist scout can get his ACLU and CAIR lawyers and plausibly deny in court that the det ckt was of any current bomb design, though it looks just like one on the X-Ray machine, same with the timer ckt, and of course the cheese almost perfectly matches the X-Ray characteristics of C-4. The cheese also allows the ACLU or CAIR lawyer to ridicule the "silliness" of persecuting someone who just stuck wires and circuits into blocks of cheese and tried to get it on a plane.
They are all unlawful combatants. FDR knew what to do with them. Shame our judicial appointments and media have become far more "enemy friendly" than in FDR's era.
Of course, this isn't true, because it's only a bumper sticker war. Anyway, we have national health care and the many crimes of Scooter Libby to think about.
We have lent an ear to the laments of sacrifice, and became deaf to the arguments proving the necessity of sacrifice.
George Wiegel, paraphrased
I agree with Cedarford that these are likely attempts to test the TSA system that could be serious. And yes, a block of cheese has much the same density as a block of C4 explosive. Either these people are playing non-cute games , they are "flying imams 2", looking for a lawsuit or they are scouts. Regardless, I would treat them in the airport just like somebody who speaks of a bomb in their luggage. That's effectively what they are doing by non-verbal means.
take them off for questioning, miss their plane, put them on a watch list and if they have any other indicators (foreign travel, non-citizen, etc) get a warrant for their phone records.
May I also anticipate the comments about how the brave left is not sh*tting their colllective pants over this?
It's just a series of remarkably similar probes of our defenses, amazingly all done by guys named Mohammed.
Plus, we probably we just missed the new Isalmic rule that Muslims have to board planes with clay by which they can make small statues of the Prophet. I think an apology is due them.
Drill Sgt is one it--this is not a joke because a block of white cheddar looks awfully much like a block of C4. and why in the world would a cheese be wrapped in wires.
Ok--that the serious side.
At the risk of quoting the irrepressible HDHOUSE: "is that the best cheese you got?" Apologies to all. I am going to take a shower now.
I agree with Cedarford
I read that as cheddarford.
The description A U.S. person's is a very unusual and clumsy way to describe someone. I hope they are in custody now, awaiting trial.
Feed the perps to the lions.
I CAN HAS CHEEZBOMBER?
Well its all fun and games until someone loses a plane at 30,000 feet.
The not so funny part is the eye rolls that some get over this reportBoy, we are jumpy today aren't we? but then are the same ones who were blaming the government for not 'connecting the dots'six years ago.
Then again maybe for some, carrying a block of cheese wrapped in wire with other electonic components is perfectly understandable. I use cheesecloth myself.
Seven said:Strangely omitted from the article is what the people looked like.
Not strange at all when you read this article. Sorry for the long link, not sure how to hyperlink on blogger.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/nrapist118.xml
MadisonMan said...
I hope they are in custody now, awaiting trial.
ah Ann and MM,
the way to piss off a liberal cheesehead is to f_ck with their cheese.
off with their (US persons) heads :)
the way to piss off a liberal cheesehead is to f_ck with their cheese.
Perhaps they should be served only limburger, but that's a bad waste of a most excellent cheese.
I hope the prison serves only California Cheese. That would be (almost) punishment enough.
I'm sure it wasn't California cheese they used. Our cheese comes from happy cows who wouldn't fit in with the terrorist profiles.
Look for the cows from disaffected climates for terrorist involvement.
To me this points to a problem. We are now 6 years from 9/11. Yet who is our enemy? We are told that the enemy is terror. But that is like saying that our enemy is an atomic bomb. This incident is one more episode of terror. The fact that a plane was not distroyed is irrelevant, the same objective was achieved. People are now more afraid. So we redouble our "war on terror". That means that all the 70 year old women will be systematically searched from top to bottom. People like myself will be pulled to the side and have to account for all of their items. We still want be able to bring toothpaste on the plane. The reason is that with the definition of our enemy, all of us are the enemy. I don't now about you people but this is not logical to me and obviously not productive.
Our government has failed us in not defining the enemy. We are told that we don't like one particular sect in the Muslim religion but can not define those in the sect and still we are subjected to the worse abuse of our constitutional priveledges ever in our history. And for what?
It is a hard pill to swallow, but our politicians will have to give a definition to our enemy other than terrorist. Are we figting Saudi's, or maybe Iran, or are we fighting a religion. If so, we need to define this and fight that element. We need to use the most ruthless of tactics in the fight and leave the rest of the American citizens alone.
Any person with half a brain can get any weapon they desire on a plane. The fact that these people sent cheeze with wires only sends a message of we are still here. I was not a "dry run". If someone has access to C4 then they have access to a willing government and an array of technicolgy that will definitely stop the idiots at the TSA. This means that at the airport gate, we need less security. By the time a "terrorist" has reached that point it is too late. Instead we need to decide that it is time to stop travel by Muslims. That sounds nuts but it is these people that wish us harm. Not 70 year old gray hairs or 58 year old men. You will argue that not all Muslims wish us harm but they do. Look at their religious literature, it is very plain. Something like 5 to 10% of Muslims are either terrorist or actively support the cause, about 80% lend sympathy and understanding to these monsters. In WWII we stopped Germans and Japanese in our country with less inclination to do us harm than these numbers. Some feel that was wrong but it got the job done and we had few incidents of terrorism here. We need to swallow the bitter pill and do the same. In WWII we did not make war on the 70 year old gray hairs. We took the war to those with sympahy to our enemy.
Some argue that in cracking down on the Muslims we will make them angry. But we are now making me angry and my neighbor is angry and we are Anglo-Saxon. Simply look at your history books and see the result of Anglo-Saxons becoming angry.
"...still we are subjected to the worse abuse of our constitutional priveledges ever in our history."
Sorry, you completely lost me there. Come back after you've actually learned some history.
This is disturbing.
So is this response: "Boy, we are jumpy today aren't we?"
That's cute Paco. Gee, I don't seem to have a handle on history. Let's see, other than under Lincoln and Wilson, can you remember a president who completely suppended the Fourth Amendment? How about habeus copus? Have you tried to go into a sports event without a strip search? How about going into the subway and having a moron go through all your items? I am sorry, that is lowering our perspective of morons and the mentally challenged. Most of the cops that I know are far worse. So yes, as I think about it that statement was a little over the top. Bush is as bad as Lincoln and Wilson. Now your point?
can you remember a president who completely suppended the Fourth Amendment? How about habeus copus?
FDR and the internment of Japanese-Americans comes to mind. Thought that was blatently obvious myself.
I don't disagree that we should be focusing on those of Arab/Muslim persuasion. In light of 9/11 and all subsequent attacks and attempts, as Dennis Miller says that's not profiling its being minimally observant. But to say that the Constitution is under assault like no other time in history does show some ignorance of the facts.
The type of searches you list do not violate the 4th amendment as the Courts have ruled long before Bush was President.
Take a deep breath, our civil liberties are intact. Why, I haven't violated someone's civil rights in a week or so.
Some argue that in cracking down on the Muslims we will make them angry. But we are now making me angry and my neighbor is angry and we are Anglo-Saxon. Simply look at your history books and see the result of Anglo-Saxons becoming angry.
Beleive me, I understand. My irish ancestry compells me to throw them all into camps [like the Japaneese] or ship them out. But thats exactly what Osama wants - for us to position ourselves into a Holy War against Islam. We have to dial it back and be responsible, abide by the constitution. Team Bush has taken great pains to paint this as a war against radical Islam [wahabi] not all Islam. Already, poll numbers in Indonesia, Pakistan, Afganistan indicate that support for bombing civilians in defense of Islam has dropped by half.
But to say that the Constitution is under assault like no other time in history does show some ignorance of the facts
The hyperbole also discredits you, like crying "wolf!" too many times. Right now, the Left could prove Bush is violating the constitution and I wouldn't believe them.
What is almost as scary to me is the move by Congress to strip those suspecting terrorists on a flight of immunity, apparently at the behest of our only Moslem Congressman, and in response to complaints by the Flying Imans (I).
You are confining your thoughts and perceptions only to the airplines. The security is stupid, pointless, and a definite violation of liberity. I realized that courts have backed this but they did the same for slavery and discrimination. But let's move away from the airpline. I tried to go to the Sugar Bowl. I was subjected to almost a strip search by the National Gurad. When they tried to do the same to my 11 year old son, I stayed near him as the crowd would have seperated us. The sargent in very rough language told me to move along and leave his vicinity. Now what was the purpose of that? The same was occurring to other individuals thoughout the complex. In New York it is not uncommon to have your bags searched in a random manner in the sub. In Miami, you are subjected to search in a mall. Now if we are targeting Muslims, that is fine. There is a purpose there, but when we are doing it to everyone that is a clear violation. As to my statement, this is one of perception as well. I am a doctor and can assure you that under Bush, we have suffered greviously with a steady errosion of rights and freedoms. This is almost on a daily basis as one regulation follows another. That has little to do with the security issue but points to an overbearing and totalitarian govenment that has received its license from this security issue as best that I can tell.
I am not alone in this anger. I know many professors and other thinkers that are as conservative as myself that are beginning to think that the government has overstepped and needs to back down. Plus, they did to focus on the enemy and not general citizens. If they don't, we may have a repeat of 1860.
Hoosier Daddy said...
I don't disagree that we should be focusing on those of Arab/Muslim persuasion.
I think this is a mistake. While it's true that the worst terror attack in US history was perpetrated by "those of Arab/Muslim persuasion", it is also true that number two on that list was perptrated by a white, non-muslim, American citizen. These guys don't fit the profile either. And let's not forget about the American Taliban, who would have no trouble getting past racial/religious profiling.
My concern is that profiling creates vulnerabilities. Once the terrorists learn that we're only looking for Arab men in their twenties, they start strapping bombs to women. Now we're looking for Arab men and women, so they send in their children. Given enough time and motivation, I have no doubt they will eventually be recruiting white westerners.
Now if we are targeting Muslims, that is fine
Really? What do Muslims look like? Do they all look exactly the same?
We are targeting terrorists, who seem to come in many stripes and colors. We are targeting bombs and other instruments of destruction.
I have no doubt they will eventually be recruiting white westerners.
Already did that. Richard Reid.
My concern is that profiling creates vulnerabilities.
I'm not advocating giving everyone non-Arab/Muslim a pass but you do have to admit that subjecting grandma to the additional security review is simply an exercise in political correctness.
While its well and good to refer to Oklahoma City, lets ask ourselves how many other white supremist type attacks we suffered since then then compare that to those by Islamic radicals. OK City was pretty much an isolated incident concoted by two losers with no affiliations with an outside organization. Fact of the matter is the main terrorist threat to the US is coming from Islamic radicals. When you can start showing some meaningful statistical evidence of more white-bred Islamic radicals other than Johnny Walker Lindh then I'll be more inclined to start subjecting everyone to the rubber gloves.
I know its not a popular concept but I still subscribe to the better rude than dead theory.
Justin,
Here is a thought. The incident with non-Muslim terror you aluded to was the consequence of the government over stepping its bounds and getting Anglo-Saxons mad. Now they are doing the same with the current overbearing, all pervasive, indiscriminate security. So I would anticipate a similar reaction in the near future if we don't do something. As to Muslims coming in many colors. That is true. They have one of two whites. But I doubt they are inclined to suicide bombing. That seems to be the the realm of the Arab and on occasion Asian. As to identifying the Muslims. Simple. We know who they are. All 1.5 million in the US.
The incident with non-Muslim terror you aluded to was the consequence of the government over stepping its bounds and getting Anglo-Saxons mad.
If you're referring to Waco as McVeigh's motivation thats a piss poor excuse. Those federal agents had a warrant and were ultimately fired on by Koresh and his minions. While the handling of the situation was questionable at best, it hardly justifies what McViegh did.
Are they sure it was a US person? My first thought was, uh-oh, Wallace and Gromit have gone over to al-Gouda.
Allow me to add some science to the discussion. Anyone work in the insurance industry? Well it tends use statistics as its core basis for evaluating risk. As you all know, a 16 year old male will have a higher premium for his car insurance than a 16 year old female. Why? Statistically, 16 year old males are more prone to accidents. Take a 35 year old male and female in good health and non-smokers and the male will have a higher life insurance premium? Why? Statistically speaking he’ll croak first. Sexist says you but actuarial tables says I and the tables don’t lie.
It’s not about fairness or equality it’s about risk management. All Muslims are not terrorists and not all 16 year old males are high risk drivers. If this was the glory days of the 1970s and the Islamic radicals were competing with the Red Brigades, Badder-Meinoff Gang or the IRA in blowing up stuff then it would make complete sense to give everyone the same treatment. But when the vast majority of current terrorist activities can be succinctly narrowed down to a specific demographic then saying that they come from all stripes and colors is being a wee bit dishonest or naïve. The government allows the insurance industry to overtly discriminate on the basis that not doing so would be unfair based on the statistical evidence. I have a hard time understanding why national security should be subjected to a lesser standard.
"I have no doubt they will eventually be recruiting white westerners.
"Already did that. Richard Reid."
Internet Ronin,
Richard Reid is Jamaican-English. Even the Oklahoma bombing seems to have had an Islamist connection, with Terry Nichols having visited the Phillipines on several occasions and purportedly seen in the company of Ramzi Yosef.
Of course, we have white terrorists, perhaps allying with other anti-Jew, anti-US government terrorists, but the number of their "incidents" is still far fewer than that of the religious-male-ethnic variety. Unfortunately for everyone, that stat and profile will hold less true as terrorist recruitment gets smarter. Perhaps one day a 50 year-old blue-eyed Caucasian woman will blow up innocents in the cause of destroying Satan America, and I won't chafe so much at being patted down and wanded at airport security every flight.
Hoosier Daddy said...
I know its not a popular concept but I still subscribe to the better rude than dead theory.
So do I. Which is why I'm ok with offending "grandma" on the off chance that she's unknowingly part of a terrorist plot.
Frankly, I'm very concerned that our security measures appear to be completely reactionary. Some guys puts an explosive in his shoe and suddenly everyone has to remove their shoes. We hear about terrorists wanting to use liquids to blow up planes, so now we can't take our toothpaste. And now, I fear, screeners are going to be told to confiscate cheese.
Why can't we try to be a step ahead of the terrorists? Was it totally inconceivable (before the shoe bomber) that someone would try to hide an explosive in their shoe? Was the idea of liquid explosives a shocking new development in bomb technology? And what are we going to say when someone kidnaps an elderly woman from a retirement home (probably not as difficult as it should be) and strap a bomb to her back because the know that the screeners won't search her?
Yes, I know the "grandma" scenario is a bit over the top. But it is definitely not out of the realm of possibility. How many people believed, on September 10, that a coordinated terrorist attack using airplanes as missles was possible, or even likely? Not enough. That's why it was successful.
It’s not about fairness or equality...
Most people who oppose racial/religious profiling do so on fairness and equality grounds. I don't. I'm not advocating political correctness.
Your comparison to insurance overlooks one very important point. In insurance, they plan for the occassional outlier, like the 20-year old, non-smoking woman who dies of a heart attack. They compensate by adjusting premiums across the board. When the poor young woman dies and the insurance company pays out, they're able to absorb it because they planned for it. Security doesn't have that option. That outlier could end up killing a few dozen people, or worse. And there's no way to compensate for that. No amount of extra security against Islamic terror will mitigate the cost of one successful home-grown attack.
Hoosier,
I just want to add that not arguing with you so much as with the people who take a more extreme, round-up-all-the-muslims-and-send-them-away approach (like davidc). I recognize that you are advocating a more reasoned, pragmatic approach. In practical terms, you're probably right. The TSA doesn't have the resources to search everyone without crippling our transportation system. I just think we should be careful about profiling because it tends to shift focus away from less imminent (but still very real) threats.
Your comparison to insurance overlooks one very important point. In insurance, they plan for the occassional outlier
Its called reserving but the overall pricing is based on the risk factors (among others) that I laid out.
Why can't we try to be a step ahead of the terrorists?
Probably because we live in a free society (despite what some might allege) and because of that we'll always be a step behind.
I will agree that alot of our measures are reactionary but then again, look at how many people complain at whats in place now.
No amount of extra security against Islamic terror will mitigate the cost of one successful home-grown attack.
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you suggesting that there are other non-Islamic terrorist groups gunning for us? I won't confirm or deny but there aren't any out there but have been thunderously silent the past decade or so.
I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do get a little irked when we seem to bend over backwards to avoid confronting who exactly we're at war with and that is Islamic extremists.
Re: " In practical terms, you're probably right. "
...except we shouldn't do it anyway because Gramma from Sun City is packing heat?
Israel has had to deal with this for years. They know what to look for and seem to have been rather successful at it. I suggest we adopt their methods.
I just think we should be careful about profiling because it tends to shift focus away from less imminent (but still very real) threats
Agreed which is why I am not advocating giving all white anglo saxons a fast pass at the terminal (and my apologies if that is how it appeared) but rather seeing that some increased scrutiny is placed on those who statistically pose the greater threat.
Chiming in to support Hoosier Dadddy
It’s not about fairness or equality it’s about risk management. All Muslims are not terrorists and not all 16 year old males are high risk drivers.
The princples of risk management or in fact all management say you should focus most (not all ) of your attention at the likely population that carry out terrorist acts.
YES! that will incourage terrorists to reach out and recruit 60 year old female WASPs. That is a good thing. Today AQ recruits in Mosques. Forcing AQ to recruit my 60 YO wife or her sisters in order to bomb the next plane does several things which are to the advantage of the defenders (Us)
1. increases AQ recruiting costs
2. allows the good guys (gals) to penetrate AQ security
3. increases the chance that some 60 TO WASP that is approached by a guy named Mohammed will rat him out to the police.
Hoosier said...
I'm not sure I follow this. Are you suggesting that there are other non-Islamic terrorist groups gunning for us? I won't confirm or deny but there aren't any out there but have been thunderously silent the past decade or so.
No. I'm just saying that reserving isn't going to work in security like it does in insurance. We can't build up a reserve of security to offset the damage done by a successful attack.
I wasn't talking about terror groups when I said "home-grown attacks". I was talking about the less likely attack by the two losers in OK City.
It's interesting and sad that the majority of the posters are more interested in being comedians than contributing any genuine thought or discussion to real issues like this. Has the Infotainment Culture really saturated our lives to such an extent that people can't turn on their thinking minds for even a few minutes each day? Or is everybody just so scared to examine what's really going on in the world that they are scrambling for something funny to serve as a distraction?
Kellie JJ -- some people react to stress with humor. Apparently you don't. This aspect of my personality can drive my wife crazy.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Now if we are targeting Muslims, that is fine
Really? What do Muslims look like? Do they all look exactly the same?
We are targeting terrorists, who seem to come in many stripes and colors. We are targeting bombs and other instruments of destruction.
Rather insipid, Dust Bunny. Terrorism is a tactic, practiced by the "special ops" portion of a much larger group that in turn depends on the society of supporters it exists in for money, shelter, scouts, logistics, recruitment.
Using a tired WWII analogy, you are saying our real war was not with the militaristic Japanese movement that declared war on us, only with those people who may or may not be Japanese, that use the tactic of torpedo-carrying warplanes. So it would make perfect sense to you to treat any Canadian, British, Soviet, or Australian torpedo bomber pilots in WWII as the possible enemy.
In the present situation, radical Muslims from some 40 terror groups of which AQ is only one, declared war on non-Muslims in the Fatwas of 1996 and 1998.
Terrorism is a rewarding tactic for them, but only a small part of the present Jihad. Most resources are tied to radical Muslim communications, recruitment, expansion of Mosques and madrassahs, de-westernizing the culture. More money is spent on promoting a succesful terrorist attack to the masses as a morale booster that we can kill the infidel and you should join us - than in launching it. And hope that the Western media and liberal politicians help legitimate radical Islam's image and "rightness".
*****************
When the poor young woman dies and the insurance company pays out, they're able to absorb it because they planned for it. Security doesn't have that option. That outlier could end up killing a few dozen people, or worse. And there's no way to compensate for that. No amount of extra security against Islamic terror will mitigate the cost of one successful home-grown attack.
Yeah, it will. Security can never be made perfect despite the assertions of self-promoting Bush and Homeland Defense jerks that "We have to be perfect every time, the enemy only has to be lucky once."
If we rely on the "perfection" of Michael Chertoff, Condi Rice, Judges on the 9th circuit - let alone some fat 80 IQ McDonolds reject in TSA polyester barking out imperious orders to some black granny - we are all in trouble.
As you recognized in your following post, we lack the resources to address every remotely possible threat like the Swedish lutheran nuns could in the realm of far remote possiblity be deep cover radical Muslims on a terror mission and must be searched as Middle Eastern passengers not randoming screened are allowed free rein? Risk management says you allocate 80% of your effort to the direct security threat, assign 20% to random security to not actually stop - but to detect emerging internal and external threats NOT on your radar screen.
A now forgotten detail is the the WTC were considered for 5 years the "Gold Standard" of private security after the 1993 radical Muslim attack had them upscale security for their rich tenants on a scale no other endeavor could match. Making the WTC impervious to all foreseen Jihadi threats cost them 200 million in upgrades, and a security budget of nearly 80 million a year with "perfect everytime" top retired FBI agents running the show.
We all know the results.
Realistically, we may stop a majority of Muslim terror attacks, but for the same money we could find ourselves like the DEA. 800 billion spent since 1971 on those "perfect everytime law enforcement heroes", while the price of a gram of coke has dropped 6-fold since 1971 and quantities quintupled.
We just have to accept that enemy Muslims can occasionally kill a lot of us infidels - here or in Iraq - despite good security. There is no perfect safety against a thinking enemy, and that enemy will not stop if all the liberal whines about giving them nice things and more "precious liberties" to their Jihadis comes to pass.
Infidels are all bad, and they must be wiped from the planet. Jihad is broken off only as a hiatus to consolidate conquest or to regroup if the unbeliever is dumb enough to allow respite. In peacetime, attempt to marry or rape the unbeliever's breeders so your numbers grow, while maintaining the threat of death to any Muslim woman or their family for allowing them to marry outside the True Faith. Even "moderate Muslims" believe that.
(Ladies, ever want to see a Muslim run? If they are hitting on you, mention you have an unmarried brother and ask the guy if he has any pictures of his unmarried sisters your 'bro might want to ask out. Watch their eyes bug out. Watch them scat.)
A cheese bomb.
I still think it's a mousetrap for people who want to terminate the annoying little rodents with extreme prejudice.
Cedarford said...
Yeah, it will.
I think you're misunderstanding me. Let's say some Timothy McVeigh worshiping moron find a way to commit another terrorist attack and kills 100 people. Are those 100 people less dead because we focused extra security on Islamic terror? Is the building they were in less damaged? Are the social and economic impacts lessened? No. That's my point. And the only reason I brought it up is to counter Hoosier's analogy of security to insurance.
Security can never be made perfect despite the assertions of self-promoting Bush and Homeland Defense jerks that "We have to be perfect every time, the enemy only has to be lucky once."
What this directed at me? I never said security can be perfect. And I wasn't (self-?)promoting any "Bush or Homeland Defense jerks".
My point was really only directed at people like davidc who seem to believe that it's all Muslims and only Muslims that want to hurt us. Islamic terror is definitely the greatest security threat we face. I'm just concerned that we're going to lose sight of the other threats.
Bruce Schneier, a big critic of "security theater," found this to be credible and worthy of attention:
The cheese and clay are stand-ins for plastic explosive. And honestly, I don't care if someone is carrying a water bottle, wearing a head scarf, or buying a one-way ticket, but if someone has a block of cheese with wires and a detonator -- I want the FBI to be called in.
...Flagging suspicious items is what the TSA is supposed to do. Unfortunately, suspicious is a subjective term, and problems arise when screeners aren't competent enough to distinguish between potentially dangerous and just plain strange. If bulletins like these are accompanied with real training, then we're getting some actual security out of the TSA.
say cheese! *flash!* BOOM
HHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
Post a Comment