So there was a failed terror attack today, and while that’s kind of scary and all, really, in this case, it’s mostly hilarious:
Per Ed Henry on CNN:
This administration has expressed skepticism of the color chart alert system. They’re concentrating more on improving security checkpoints and other measures at airports, not colors.
Susan Collins on Homeland Security committee says she’s expecting a briefing soon, wonders how the passenger got explosives on the plane to begin with, and if he actually does have ties to any terrorist organization.
Passenger Richard Griffith, who was on the plane, just said the explosives must have been in the guys pocket, ended up “in his crotch”.
Now that’s what I call a crotch rocket.
Naturally, it’s not good that the bomber, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, got an incendiary device onto a plane. And I’m dreading what new and exciting forms of security theater our friends at the TSA will come up with to make us feel safe that the guy or gal next to us doesn’t have a bomb in their crotch.
But honestly, I’m not all that worried. After all, here’s what evidently happened:
Federal authorities have been told that Abdulmutallab allegedly had taped some material to his leg, then used a syringe to mix some chemicals with the powder while on the airplane, one official said. Officials described the device as incendiary rather than explosive, pending tests by forensics experts at the FBI. Incendiary devices generally deliver less of an impact than explosive devices.
A man who said he was on Flight 253, Syed Jafry of Holland, Mich., told the Detroit Free Press that he noticed a glow three rows ahead in the Airbus 330, then smelled smoke. The next moment, Jafri recounted, “a young man behind me jumped on” Abdulmutallab.
So the guy got some chemicals on that could have maybe started a fire, but weren’t explosive. That’s not particularly scary. Oh, sure, it would be frightening in the moment. But you can’t bring a plane down with an incendiary device. Not even close.
In a way, this is the sort of “attack” that proves that terror countermeasures are working. If this is the best al Qaeda and its sympathizers ((The guy evidently claims to be with al Qaeda, but there’s reason to think he might just be self-aggrandizing.)) can do…well, it’s pretty pathetic. Basically, they’re as frightening as your high school friend who discovered you can set hair spray on fire. Both could hurt someone, other than themselves. But that would be more by chance than by design.
No, this attack is not reason to panic. It’s reason to laugh long and hard at those who want to scare us, reason to invoke bad double entendres about this wannabe’s crotch fire, like the one in this sentence. And most of all, it’s reason to cheer the demise of al Qaeda, a truly terrible organization that now has been reduced to setting small fires. I just hope no terrorist decides to egg my house. That could be horrible.
For incendiary devices check out what thermite can do.
Obviously this was laughable but a Thermite bomb can bring down an aircraft if properly used.
From Wikipedia:
Thermite usage is hazardous due to the extremely high temperatures produced and the extreme difficulty in smothering a reaction once initiated.
The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder’s mask) be worn. Small streams of molten iron released in the reaction can travel considerable distances and may melt through metal containers, igniting their contents. Additionally, flammable metals with relatively low boiling points such as zinc, whose boiling point of 907 °C (1665 °F) is about 1370 °C (2500 °F) below the temperature at which thermite burns, could potentially boil superheated metal violently into the air if near a thermite reaction, where it could then burst into flame as it is exposed to oxygen.
I am not saying don’t enjoy the humour of this situtation, I am just saying know your incendiaries
In a way, this is the sort of “attack” that proves that terror countermeasures are working.
Yes, the nine years of the Obama Administration’s anti-terror work is beginning to pay off. ;)
And we thought taking off our shoes was irritating.
If anybody tries hiding a bomb in a diaper, that’ll be the end of the airline industry.
But you can’t bring a plane down with an incendiary device. Not even close.
Steve’s right; place an incendiary device in a number of spots in an airplane and you can cause damage to control cables (electrical and mechanical), not to mention putting a hole in the hull that could lead to explosive decompression. In the latter case the hull might hold together but you could still end up with dead passengers.
Minimizing this is quite foolish. I certainly hope that the FAA and the TSA don’t take the same attitude.
As I understand it, the mixture he had would have caused a massive explosion if it had detonated properly. He was incompetent and mixed the various substances incorrectly.
I frankly don’t find anything funny about 300 people nearly getting killed. In addition to the people on the ground in Detroit that were supposed to be killed.
“Jeff Fecke” doesn’t appear to have a whole lot of empathy.
Veritas, what’s your source for that claim, please? (A link would be best.)
Also, please try not to make personal attacks on the posters.
Thanks!
Veritas is correct. The underwear bomber had 80 grams of PETN, a high explosive. (Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/northwest-airlines-bomb-photos/story?id=9436297&page=1) Shoe bomber Richard Reid had a 50-gram PETN bomb, for reference purposes.
The detonator did not work properly. If it had, it would have been an explosion, not a fire, and would have blown a hole in the side of the plane.
PETN is one of the more powerful high explosives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETN
If this is the best al Qaeda and its sympathizers1 can do…well, it’s pretty pathetic.
The best they can do is to bypass the security systems built up since 9/11 and get explosives on a plane. You might find this pathetic but it looks like pretty effective nonsymmetrical warfare to me.
In what way effective?
I don’t doubt that they’ll succeed in being very frightening to Americans, especially Americans who don’t understand the statistics involved (the chance of being on a flight where a terrorist incident takes place is about 1 in ten million — being struck by lightning is more likely).
But that’s about the limit of what they can accomplish with these tactics. If they blow up a plane, that would be a tragic loss of life. But it won’t bring the US down. It won’t even come one-billionth of the way towards bringing the US down. It’s not a threat to us the way Pearl Harbor was a threat to us, or even the way 9/11 was a threat to us.
At most, it’s effective for them as a publicity stunt. And possibly as a way of manipulating the US into mid-east wars that help terrorist groups with recruitment goals.
But as a tactic of war against the US, it’s not effective.
There have been effective asymmetrical wars fought — you can recognize them because the smaller side won. There is no realistic prospect of Al Qaeda defeating the US because someone brought explosives onto a plane. Not even if they did succeed in crashing the plane (which they didn’t).
What Al Qaeda really wants, of course, is for Americans to panic and live in fear. I don’t intend to help them achieve that goal.
That said, thanks for the corrections — it now seems clear that the initial info on what the terrorist was carrying, was mistaken.
In what way effective?
In the way of millions of people now being more afraid to fly. Yes, one in ten bazillion or whatever – but human psychology works the way it works, not the way rationalists wish it worked. So, economic losses from foregone business travel, human losses from foregone chances to see family or friends or lovers, cultural losses from foregone travel by performers or audiences.
Is that going to defeat us? No. Al Qaeda are idiots, with a plan that reads:
1. Underpants bombs.
2. ???
3. Caliphate!
But something doesn’t have to defeat us to be powerfully negative. You could kill 100,000,000 Americans, and we wouldn’t necessarily be “defeated” – but it would sure suck.
This is pure suck. And from your partisan position, you should see it as being even more sucktastic, because this kind of shit is going to murder Obama’s chances in 2012, fairly or not.
I don’t fly anymore, and it’s not because of 9/11 or underpants bombers. It’s because the airfare is so damn expensive (even compared to a few years ago) and I sit in the tiniest seat imaginable without any leg room – and I’m 5’4″. I can’t imagine what a regular height person has to go through. And now I hear they’ve started charging for all checked luggage. No thank you. I’d rather drive for 22 hours to see my family, and 22 hours to get back (which is actually why I’ve had limited internet connectivity lately – I’m in my home state of Texas visiting the fam.)
At any rate, I’m glad it didn’t detonate, and I don’t look forward to whatever measures get put into place to turn this into security theatre. It will be just another reason not to fly ever again for me – which is a shame, because I’d really like to travel more when I get the time and money.
I’d rather drive for 22 hours to see my family, and 22 hours to get back
You’re far more likely to be killed by a driver texting on the highway than by a pants or shoe bomber. Though I agree that the leg room, invasive and ridiculous searches (will we now have to take off our pants as we go through security?) and wait times on planes suck dead bunnies through a straw. Personally, I’d like an alternative to planes and cars? High speed trains anyone?
Heh. You are far more likely to be killed by a falling meteorite than a shoe bomber, but if you are human, you treasure the illusion of control. We all tell ourselves are we will be able to take evasive action, that our car will absorb the impact, etc…
I am not so sure. I think that most of the grunts are unhappy people who can’t find anything bright in their life, and whose only positive feelings come from working for what they understand as the good of Islam. As for the real leaders, I like to think that they’re attempting to fight the Western incursions (cultural and military) in their countries. That would make them rational and one can hope for peace with reasonable people.
Oh yeah, I know I’m more likely to be killed (much more so than in an airplane.) It’s less about the illusion of control and more about just being able to do it on my schedule, in my way without a whole lot of people forcing me to undergo their version of security theatre.
I’ll be driving the drive again tomorrow. Hope everyone has a great new year (and I’ll stop thread-jacking now!)
Someone fighting “Western incursion” into their culture is fighting equal rights for women, not-killing of gays, and universal literacy.
What accommodation exactly are we to reach with such “rational” people?
Someone fighting “Western incursion” into their culture is fighting equal rights for women, not-killing of gays, and universal literacy.
It’d be nice if we could fight for those things in the “west” first.
So you’re advocating eternal war against all countries that lack universal literacy, sex equality, and violently repress homosexuality?
Because the alternative to war is some form of accommodation, which you imply cannot exist, or at least would be morally intolerable.
I can’t imagine what sort of exit strategy from Afghanistan (for example) is plausible if we follow your advice. The armed forces are not a magic wand which, once waved, turns intolerant cultures tolerant.
If I’m correct about that, would you call for decades-long occupation and war, rather than accommodation?
I’m discussing the leaders of the groups that have made themselves our enemies, not saying what our policy should be. This is what they believe. We can deal with that, or not.
I think that at some point, “dealing with that” requires discussing what our policy should be. Otherwise it’s just pointless yammering.
Yes, they hate gays, but so does your movement. The primary difference is we live in a culture where calling for gays to be imprisoned or executed has become politically unacceptable, so your leaders don’t do that. But if they could, they would (and some of them did just a few decades ago). So do we have any practical means of changing (for instance) Afghanistan culture the same way our culture has changed? And if not, then what should our policy goal be?
In the US, the bigots don’t have the freedom to hate gays they do in a place like Uganda. So instead they run campaigns implying that gay people are a danger to children, and fight to keep same-sex couples unequal under the law. The significant moral test isn’t whether or not you oppose the gay-hatred on another continent; it’s whether you oppose it where you live.
I think at this time and place, the radical left is morally superior. But in another time, large numbers of the radical left defended and aligned themselves with the Soviets. I don’t think most of us are inherently morally superior to those historic leftists, as individuals; I think we’re just in a time that confines us in better moral boxes.
People aren’t really good, or evil, in and of themselves — or at least, most of us aren’t. We mostly just do what the people around us suggest are within the limits of acceptability.
Wow, have I drifted far from the subject.