NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, now it's hair gel, toothpaste, and baby formula.

You know, there is a WIDE variety of common materials that, in the wrong hands, could combine to be lethal (poisonous in a confined aircraft cabin, let alone explosive).

All that aside - one might conclude that if we restrict one option, the terrorists will choose another. And they don't have to be particularly inventive.

So, I'm making a proposal to jump to the end here, and propose a means of securing an airliner full of passengers.

1. All passengers will be stripped of their clothing, and change into paper gowns and paper slippers.

2. There are two tiers of baggage: with the plane - in which case you must arrive six hours in advance and everything is searched meticulously by hand and x-ray. That baggage is carried in the baggage compartment. The other tier is to have your baggage shipped with slightly less security on a no-passenger cargo flight. In no case will anyone be allowed to carry anything on board.

3. By stripped, I mean it. No jewelry, ornaments, clothing, ribbons, pins, or anything. People will be flouroscoped to verify the absence of anything that could be used.

4. All passengers will be shackled to their seats on boarding. In order to use the lavatory, you must signal the steward, who will never release more than two people at a time. These shackles will be built into the seats, and computer controlled. In the event of an imminent emergency requiring people to exit the aircraft, all shackles will be released at once.

Got any other ideas?

Got any other ideas?

Yeah. How about not letting the terrorists win by changing what we do so radically because of them? Not surrendering in this manner?

Crazy, I know.

er...no.

I think most of us would prefer that we have decent security measures and accept that risk is always going to be a fact of life, no matter how much cotton wool you try to dress in.

Got any other ideas?I'll take a boat or a train... :p

Fucking hell.

Whatever happened to "the terrorists won't beat us", "they won't change our way of life" etc.?

Erm...

... Wouldn't doing this require the nationalisation of the airline industry? I find it difficult to believe any private company would retain its customers if it tried something like that.

Yeah, now it's hair gel, toothpaste, and baby formula.

You know, there is a WIDE variety of common materials that, in the wrong hands, could combine to be lethal (poisonous in a confined aircraft cabin, let alone explosive).

All that aside - one might conclude that if we restrict one option, the terrorists will choose another. And they don't have to be particularly inventive.

So, I'm making a proposal to jump to the end here, and propose a means of securing an airliner full of passengers.

1. All passengers will be stripped of their clothing, and change into paper gowns and paper slippers.

2. There are two tiers of baggage: with the plane - in which case you must arrive six hours in advance and everything is searched meticulously by hand and x-ray. That baggage is carried in the baggage compartment. The other tier is to have your baggage shipped with slightly less security on a no-passenger cargo flight. In no case will anyone be allowed to carry anything on board.

3. By stripped, I mean it. No jewelry, ornaments, clothing, ribbons, pins, or anything. People will be flouroscoped to verify the absence of anything that could be used.

4. All passengers will be shackled to their seats on boarding. In order to use the lavatory, you must signal the steward, who will never release more than two people at a time. These shackles will be built into the seats, and computer controlled. In the event of an imminent emergency requiring people to exit the aircraft, all shackles will be released at once.

Got any other ideas?all meals would be fed from small tubes and packets since no utensils will be present.

rebuild each plane, so that each seat is infact it's own sealed lavoratory, that way there will be no reason to unshackle them. any problems will have to wait till the plane safely lands and all other passengers are disembarked. there will be a little door where drink and food bags will be slid in. each sealed seat can only be opened from the outside.

Fucking hell.

Whatever happened to "the terrorists won't beat us", "they won't change our way of life" etc.?

People obviously became pussified and let the terrorists win by living in, well, terror.

Fucking hell.

Whatever happened to "the terrorists won't beat us", "they won't change our way of life" etc.?

Ok, you get on an international flight where there's no profiling, with governments that will stop doing NSA-style monitoring, where mosques will no longer be under surveillance, where we can take our security levels back to pre-911 days and who cares if they try again (they seem to keep trying), because it's only 6 to 10 planeloads of people per try.

Fucking hell.

Whatever happened to "the terrorists won't beat us", "they won't change our way of life" etc.?
they haven't changed my way of life, I still make fun of everything.


after all, DK wasn't serious... right? :confused:

People obviously became pussified and let the terrorists win by living in, well, terror.

Yup, it's a sad sight...those who aim to defeat terrorists are doing exactly what the terrorists hope to achieve; changing our lives fundamentally.

they haven't changed my way of life, I still make fun of everything.


after all, DK wasn't serious... right? :confused:

I just find it ridiculous that people believe that current measures (even tightened as they are) constitute "security".

It's bogus.

I just find it ridiculous that people believe that current measures (even tightened as they are) constitute "security".

It's bogus.
I'm amazed that someone who claims to be a Christian is so terrified of death.

I just find it ridiculous that people believe that current measures (even tightened as they are) constitute "security".

It's bogus.
well, there's security, and then there's paranoia. while I do agree with changing the locks when your house is broken into, it's something else to turn your home into Ft. Knox.

What about putting a squad of air marshals on each plane - and have them blend into the civilians? Money could be used to develop ammunition that won't comprimise the structure of the plane - and at least ONE of the squad members should be a backup pilot of some sort...

Yeah. How about not letting the terrorists win by changing what we do so radically because of them? Not surrendering in this manner?

Crazy, I know.
DK's proposals are ridiculous, but I think that the terrorists would be winning if they successfully blew us up, rather than if extreme security measures foiled them.

I'm amazed that someone who claims to be a Christian is so terrified of death.

It's not "death".

The problem is that many people say, "Well, let's not go to war anywhere. That's a waste of time and money and people. So, let's treat this as a police matter. But, since we don't want to give up any privacy rights, we can't have any NSA-style monitoring (which did produce results in the Bali bombings). And, we can't profile anyone, because that would be offensive. And, we can't monitor mosques (same reason). So, we live our lives unchanged, except that we're willing to accept a little more pretense at airline security, and we declare victory and say we're protected now."

If you opposed the NSA monitoring...
If you oppose ethnic, racial, or religious profiling...
If you oppose monitoring mosques...
If you oppose attacking them in their native countries...
If you oppose clandestine direct action...

and the airline security IS bogus...

how do you propose to make it all stop?

Or, do you accept let's say, one or two multi-thousand people air attacks per year?

What about putting a squad of air marshals on each plane - and have them blend into the civilians? Money could be used to develop ammunition that won't comprimise the structure of the plane - and at least ONE of the squad members should be a backup pilot of some sort...
did you know that most airline stewards are trained in basic avionics? my friends wife got her training when she was an attendant.

DK's proposals are ridiculous, but I think that the terrorists would be winning if they successfully blew us up, rather than if extreme security measures foiled them.
"They would win if they made society into what they want society to be made into" is the line of thinking, I reckon.

4. All passengers will be shackled to their seats on boarding. In order to use the lavatory, you must signal the steward, who will never release more than two people at a time. These shackles will be built into the seats, and computer controlled. In the event of an imminent emergency requiring people to exit the aircraft, all shackles will be released at once.

Got any other ideas?
Too extreme. How many flights are actually targetted, one in ten thousand?

'Swhere we're headed. I'm taking the train.

Seriously, why don't we just get over the idea that we can find any dangerous device. Then we need to screen all the passengers intelligently. Ask pointed questions and evaluate the response. Not that that's possible with the barely literate bunch of hoodlums that masquerade as Federal agents of the TSA. We'd have to fire them and replace them with competent agents.

Oh and profile everyone. Racially profile them. All Arabs get special treatment. All those that look Arab get special treatment (sorry Sikhs, it's for your own good) And quit listening to the cry-babies that are worried about whatever sin is being committed.

thats just ridiculous. youre surrending to terrorism if you do that.

Or, do you accept let's say, one or two multi-thousand people air attacks per year?
No, you do everything (sane) you can to stop terrorist attacks, but ultimately accept that no security will ever be 100% effective; even your 'idea'. If they were that desperate to bring a plane down, they would just adapt, as you rightly point out, and so they'll shoot it down rather than blow it up.

DK's proposals are ridiculous, but I think that the terrorists would be winning if they successfully blew us up, rather than if extreme security measures foiled them.

They do not win by killing us - they win by having us afraid of them killing us.

Too extreme. How many flights are actually targetted, one in ten thousand?

That's like saying, "what are the odds of a nuclear powerplant accident". Pretty fucking low odds.

But, politically unacceptable. It can be the kind of occurrence that gets you voted out of office (like any other major fuckup).

Oh and profile everyone. Racially profile them. All Arabs get special treatment. All those that look Arab get special treatment (sorry Sikhs, it's for your own good) And quit listening to the cry-babies that are worried about whatever sin is being committed.
Why not everyone? Don't forget the IRA, Chechnyans, the Japanese Aleph and Fred Phelps; terrorists come in all colours.

DK's proposals are ridiculous, but I think that the terrorists would be winning if they successfully blew us up, rather than if extreme security measures foiled them.
but they are not trying to kill us. tyhey are trying to scare us. and with all these warnings, technically we are helping them. just like their war on drugs, america's war on terror will never be won if they do such things. they are saying "terrorists will never change our way of life", but take a look at whats happing now. you actually let them.

but they are not trying to kill us. tyhey are trying to scare us.

I guess that's why al-Qaeda documents list as one of their goals, the acquisition of smallpox.

News flash: smallpox doesn't scare you to death.

but they are not trying to kill us. tyhey are trying to scare us. and with all these warnings, technically we are helping them.

Oh, and if you sympathize with them so much, call them and let them know that the US warplanes are not trying to kill them, just trying to scare them, and with all those bombings, technically we are helping them.

Oh, and if you sympathize with them so much, call them and let them know that the US warplanes are not trying to kill them, just trying to scare them, and with all those bombings, technically we are helping them.
i do not support terrorism. admit it, our security is going in the wrong direction, doing nothing but causing inconvenience to people who are not terrorists.

Okay, hold it! Hold everything!

Let's stop for a moment and think.

First, we need to define terrorism. The term terrorism means to terrify, or provoke fear, into a population, in order to create change and put into effect policies and whatnot that might never have been done otherwise. For instance, undue paranoia makes for a more easily controlled populace.

So, by radically changing our way of life--even just for traveling on planes--we essentially do exactly what they want us to do: change. I, therefore, propose that we do not at all. We, instead, enact intelligent, resourceful, and above all as-unintruding-as-possible security measures. We do NOT racially profile. Instead, we keep tabs on everyone. We note their activities in the airport and if they do anything suspicious, target them then, and ONLY then, for a search and whatnot. In regards to baggage checks, we need to train the personell much more thoroughly, in order for them to be able to recognize any sort of explosive or otherwise harmful device and/or pieces to said devices. Better machines that would be able to detect certain compounds hidden in, say, a sports drink, would be a good idea as well, though certainly more an idea for the future than anything else.

The air marshall idea seems quite reasonable enough to me. I propose we take the weapon idea one step further and turn them into tranquilizer weapons, armed with rounds that can incapacitate a person almost immediately. Thus, they are available for capture and later interrogation, rather than becoming another martyr for whatever cause they act for. This also prevents accidental injury to innocent bystanders, as the worst that would happen is that they are knocked out for whatever period of time the sedative is effective.

The key, ladies and gentlemen, is to make ourselves safer without compromising our freedoms, liberties, and above all our way of life. If we react harshly, if we strip away the very freedoms we fight each and every day to protect in the name of security, then, and ONLY then, have the terrorists won.

The air marshall idea seems quite reasonable enough to me. I propose we take the weapon idea one step further and turn them into tranquilizer weapons, armed with rounds that can incapacitate a person almost immediately.

Nothing works fast enough as a tranquilizer that isn't potentially lethal.

Effective doses rely on mass of tranquilizing substance vs. body mass.

If it's made to work on even a 300-lb man, it would probably kill a 100-lb woman.

Nothing works fast enough as a tranquilizer that isn't potentially lethal.

Effective doses rely on mass of tranquilizing substance vs. body mass.

If it's made to work on even a 300-lb man, it would probably kill a 100-lb woman.
...hmm...that IS a problem. I'd suggest tasers, but those are equally problematic when it comes to stunning people.

Still, I'm certain science can work something out. We simply need to do the research.

...although...if they were accurate enough...what about guns that shoot nets? See, we shoot the net into their face, and it wraps around their head and--no, that's just stupid.

What do you suggest instead, then? A nonlethal solution is much more preferable to regular firearms, as this will prevent accidental injury. Collateral damage is simply not acceptable.

...hmm...that IS a problem. I'd suggest tasers, but those are equally problematic when it comes to stunning people.

Still, I'm certain science can work something out. We simply need to do the research.

...although...if they were accurate enough...what about guns that shoot nets? See, we shoot the net into their face, and it wraps around their head and--no, that's just stupid.

What do you suggest instead, then? A nonlethal solution is much more preferable to regular firearms, as this will prevent accidental injury. Collateral damage is simply not acceptable.

I shoot pistols quite often. Neither I nor my daughter have ever had trouble hitting something the size of a playing card on demand, several times in less than a second, from start of timer through draw to shots fired.

I hear that air marshals are well-trained, and have to qualify at a level not usually expected of law enforcement (which is usually quite lame).

They have also fired their guns before, and not hit anyone or anything that was not the intended target.

Most pistol rounds are also notoriously less than lethal, unless you get hit in the brain, which is where air marshals are evidently trained to aim.

I shoot pistols quite often. Neither I nor my daughter have ever had trouble hitting something the size of a playing card on demand, several times in less than a second, from start of timer through draw to shots fired.

I hear that air marshals are well-trained, and have to qualify at a level not usually expected of law enforcement (which is usually quite lame).

They have also fired their guns before, and not hit anyone or anything that was not the intended target.

Most pistol rounds are also notoriously less than lethal, unless you get hit in the brain, which is where air marshals are evidently trained to aim.
Which leaves them unable to capture the terrorist. Thusly, they should be trained to disable. I would think a shot to the knee would disable them enough for another air marshall to subdue the hijacker physically. If only because I think it is more humane, and has this amusing tendency to really hurt the cause of whomever the terrorist works for. Martyrs are good for all causes, no matter what the origins, and thusly, preventing martyrs should be as important as ensuring safety. If we must fight a war on terrorism, let us do it effectively. It is much more of a psychological war than any other, and we need to recognize that fact.

Which leaves them unable to capture the terrorist. Thusly, they should be trained to disable.
I believe they'd probably try, but if there's a maniac with a gun or a bomb on board, I'd prefer that maniac to die instead of me. And a plane is a crowded sort of place, you don't want to make it any more difficult for the marshall than it already is.

Personally I quite like the idea of air marshalls on the planes. It seems to do more to protect people than all the crap on the ground.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work against people with bombs who don't jump up and make a big fuss.

I believe they'd probably try, but if there's a maniac with a gun or a bomb on board, I'd prefer that maniac to die instead of me. And a plane is a crowded sort of place, you don't want to make it any more difficult for the marshall than it already is.

Personally I quite like the idea of air marshalls on the planes. It seems to do more to protect people than all the crap on the ground.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work against people with bombs who don't jump up and make a big fuss.
Aye, there is that. Still, killing should be a last resort if there is no other option. I leave it to the air marshalls present in each instance to decide.

As for a bomb, the idea would be to catch it before it goes onto the plane.

I believe they'd probably try, but if there's a maniac with a gun or a bomb on board, I'd prefer that maniac to die instead of me. And a plane is a crowded sort of place, you don't want to make it any more difficult for the marshall than it already is.

Personally I quite like the idea of air marshalls on the planes. It seems to do more to protect people than all the crap on the ground.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work against people with bombs who don't jump up and make a big fuss.

Could you use racial profiling against Air Marshalls then? Otherwise, I see this series of events unfolding where an individual sympathetic to radical islamic groups gets recruited either after becoming, or potentially before being recruited to become, an Air Marshall. Sounds like a bad movie plot I know, but it could potentially happen. My question boils down to: Do we let muslims become Federal Air Marshalls?

Could you use racial profiling against Air Marshalls then? Otherwise, I see this series of events unfolding where an individual sympathetic to radical islamic groups gets recruited either after becoming, or potentially before being recruited to become, an Air Marshall. Sounds like a bad movie plot I know, but it could potentially happen. My question boils down to: Do we let muslims become Federal Air Marshalls?
I think we should only let athiests be Air Marshalls. Avoids that problem completely.

...

Yes, I was being sarcastic. Of course we should let Muslims become Air Marshalls. Until such time where we have clear and precise evidence that it would be a really bad idea--such as, say, an actual Muslim Air Marshall going nuts and whatnot--then we have no basis for such discriminatory practices.

I'd rather be blown to smithereens at 35,000 feet than be subject to these measures.

That's like saying, "what are the odds of a nuclear powerplant accident". Pretty fucking low odds.
The consequences of a nuclear accident are more catastrophic than a terrorist attack, and the precautions taken in the nuclear plants are not so extreme as to slow the industry down to a trudge.

Why not everyone? Don't forget the IRA, Chechnyans, the Japanese Aleph and Fred Phelps; terrorists come in all colours.
Fred Phelps is neither an ethnic group nor a terrorist!

4. All passengers will be shackled to their seats on boarding. In order to use the lavatory, you must signal the steward, who will never release more than two people at a time. These shackles will be built into the seats, and computer controlled. In the event of an imminent emergency requiring people to exit the aircraft, all shackles will be released at once.

Haven't you seen U.S. Marshals? What if a pen gun is hidden in the toilet and is brought out resulting in disaster for the plane? :eek:

My question boils down to: Do we let muslims become Federal Air Marshalls?
Yep, of course. Just like you let Muslims become policemen, soldiers, politicians or businessmen.

Seriously, were you serious with your question? I mean, I always sort of assume that when people make these "all Muslims are terrorists, or pretty close to it" statements they're just kidding around and really know better, but sometimes I wonder...

Got any other ideas?
Not bothering going abroad?

Yeah. How about not letting the terrorists win by changing what we do so radically because of them? Not surrendering in this manner?

Crazy, I know.
I have a better idea, if they DO catch some terrorists, you take them out on the Tarmac and blow their heads off.

I have a better idea, if they DO catch some terrorists, you take them out on the Tarmac and blow their heads off.
Thus making them martyrs, thus doing their job for them. Hey, I've got an idea: why not just skip that whole process and bomb the planes ourselves? Because that would accomplish the exact same thing--psychologically--and you know it.

I have a better idea, if they DO catch some terrorists, you take them out on the Tarmac and blow their heads off.

Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm)

Thus making them martyrs, thus doing their job for them. Hey, I've got an idea: why not just skip that whole process and bomb the planes ourselves? Because that would accomplish the exact same thing--psychologically--and you know it.
Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm)

Firstly. Kyronea, do you seriously think that I think that killing them would be a valid solution? Apart from the reasons you stated. (Though even going to jails they'll still be Martyrs to some, but that's beside the point.) There are plenty more of those Monsters in the world And you can never get rid of them all.

Secondly. Baguetten perhaps I'd care about the human rights rules towards Terrorists if they did the same. But wait that's right, they don't give a care about human rights, they just want to kill as many people as possible.

Secondly. Baguetten perhaps I'd care about the human rights rules towards Terrorists if they did the same. But wait that's right, they don't give a care about human rights, they just want to kill as many people as possible.

I couldn't give a crap what you care or do not care about, especially when it makes you no better than the terrorists themselves. Because, "I'm not gonna care because they don't care" is mimicking them.

In any case, The Council of Europe has banned the death penalty, as has the Swedish constitution. So, telling me that I should "shoot their brains out" is not only silly, but also ignorant.

Fred Phelps is neither an ethnic group nor a terrorist!
Westboro's actions have often dissolved into attacks on civilians as a way of making a political point. What is that if not terrorism?

I couldn't give a crap what you care or do not care about, especially when it makes you no better than the terrorists themselves. Because, "I'm not gonna care because they don't care" is mimicking them.
Nope wrong, their motivation is:
"I don't care because if I kill enough I'm getting (Insert Number) Virgins to rape in Heaven and not to mention everyone I kill will have to be my slave in the afterlife." :P


In any case, The Council of Europe has banned the death penalty, as has the Swedish constitution. So, telling me that I should "shoot their brains out" is not only silly, but also ignorant.
I know that the Death Penalty is banned in Europe, that's why it should have been clear that it wasn't a serious option.

Listen, the post was meant to be taken as seriously as the first post in this thread. From the illogicallness of stripping all passengers and shackling them in their seats to taking everyone you think is a terrorist and shooting them.

Both ideas are insane and inhumane. Get it?

What about inflight movies?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/theater/images/clockwork_big.jpg