IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New As always.
Again with the racial profiling. Yes, the hijackers were Saudi.

But you cannot focus on EVERYTHING.

Focusing means to pay more attention to one thing than to other things.

If you develop a rules system that focuses on arabians, then, by definition, you are paying less attention to other passengers.

Which is why I gave the example of using the white girlfriend to get the weapons through security.

As for a terrorist being able to out draw a uniformed security guard, that depends upon the terrorist having a hand gun and if the terrorist has managed to get a hand gun onto the plane, there's nothing any sky marshal is going to be able to do to stop them.

My scenario relies upon the guards being better armed than the hijackers. If we can't achieve that, then we need to seal the cockpit from the rest of the plane.
New Re: Agree re the focus - IRA understood this well ...

As did the 1970 palestinian terrorists.

Start up a romance with a lost soul - fill her bags with the stash (guns, drugs, whatever), provide an excuse for why she has to travel or start to, travel alone. Defeat the screening who are looking for an Irish Male Terrorist or a Palestinian male Terrorist.

This has to be a no-brainer.

Cheers

Doug
New El Al
Israel has not had a single problem with hijackings since the 1970's. They profile extensively. They have an equivalent of air marshals on every flight.

The U.S. could learn a lot from them, if we weren't so damn politically correct.
Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."
New Capacity.
Israel also runs fewer than 1/1,000 of the flights the US runs each day.

Israel has multiple check points along the roads leading to the airport.

Think about what would happen if the US decided to block all traffic 2 miles from each airport and do a car by car check for suspicious individuals.

And that does not even include UPS and Airborne and FedEx aircraft.
     Get over it! - (wharris2) - (30)
         Security Checks - (orion)
         It's simple: those paid to 'do security' - (Ashton) - (1)
             Those paid to 'do security" - (orion)
         I'll disagree. - (Brandioch) - (14)
             Yours is better. I retract. -NT - (Ashton)
             Of course you'll disagree. - (wharris2) - (7)
                 Pretty much. :) - (Brandioch) - (6)
                     Further disagreements - (wharris2) - (5)
                         As always. - (Brandioch) - (3)
                             Re: Agree re the focus - IRA understood this well ... - (dmarker2)
                             El Al - (wharris2) - (1)
                                 Capacity. - (Brandioch)
                         %100 of little Timmy McV wasn't Arabic - (mhuber)
             that was how the lockerbie plane blew - (boxley) - (4)
                 Exactamente! We don't *want* to face things ever. - (Ashton) - (3)
                     Can't we just put better procedures in place? - (mhuber)
                     You see, Ash, that's the problem! - (jb4) - (1)
                         And it kinda makes discussion superfluous. - (Ashton)
         Are you just NOW getting to this? - (Simon_Jester) - (6)
             "Irregardless" is not a word. It's "Regardless". - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                 Oooh! A nit war! :-) It's in dictionary.com - (Another Scott)
                 Ya know... - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                     Huh? - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                         That ain't 'murder', just a bit of battery. - (Ashton)
                 Burns my butt also, sir Moffit -NT - (wharris2)
         I've said it before, I'll say it again. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
             There is no 100% secure. - (Brandioch) - (1)
                 Obviously.. and thus far - Whole Const. Amendments-full.. -NT - (Ashton)
             Another exchange. - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                 In that world - (boxley)

Little fluffy clouds.
172 ms