Terrorism is always disgusting, but this is just plain gross.

December 6, 2001 2:34 PM

Terrorism is always disgusting, but this is just plain gross. Wired wonders if terrorists will start carrying explosives inside their bodies. They don't explain whether they'll, uh, "remove" them before detonation. Will Argenbright start issuing rubber gloves? And on a more serious note, does this underscore the fact that planes can never be fully secure, meaning I can get my plastic lunch knife back? (I think so.)
posted by Sinner (11 comments total)

This is all possible to do. However, in the most recent incidents (911 for example), the terrorists want to use the plane itself as the 'bomb." blowing themselves and the plane up does not accomplish this aim.
posted by Postroad at 2:37 PM on December 6, 2001

smuggle three pounds vaginally and a pound anally

She's the bomb!
posted by hellinskira at 2:44 PM on December 6, 2001

..you've seen the movies, in the future, the do full body x-rays.
posted by tomplus2 at 2:48 PM on December 6, 2001

In August I would have said that this was ridiculous and that no one would ever do something like this.
posted by ColdChef at 2:55 PM on December 6, 2001

Why worry about how they will remove them? Suicide bombers already exist. They think dying for their cause give's a "Get into Heaven free" card.
posted by Nauip at 3:30 PM on December 6, 2001

Nauip - well, that's kind of the point. Since they're going to die anyway, why not be the first one to go, and instantanously, at that? So maybe they detonate the thing internally. That's when I get this awful picture in my head of a person just outright exploding and, well, ewwww.
posted by Sinner at 3:36 PM on December 6, 2001

This post BLEW MY MIND UP!
posted by fuq at 3:58 PM on December 6, 2001

I can totally see this happening. In a way, if you think about it, it's obvious -- just as the 9/11 attacks are in hindsight. I'd say that one of the most dangerous things we can do is to fail to think as creatively as the terrorists about their possible means and targets of attack.
posted by verdezza at 11:54 PM on December 6, 2001

Brings new meaning to: Bend over, this won't hurt a bit.
posted by mischief at 5:23 AM on December 7, 2001

". . . does this underscore the fact that planes can never be fully secure . . ."

Yes, it does. The word "secure" is not a discrete descriptor, as in "secure v. unsecure." Rather, it is a gradient descriptor, as in "more secure v. less secure."

Wish more people understood that.

Remember, anybody who "guarantees" your safety and security is lying.
posted by yesster at 6:22 AM on December 7, 2001

Now, are we talking about transporting explosive or being a live weapon? They're not precisely the same thing. I can swallow a condom filled with Semtex and that doesn't mean I'm a danger to anyone but myself (through possible blockage of my GI tract). OTOH, I think you'd need a blasting cap, detonator, a battery, etc. to make the explosive filler a useful bomb. Could the whole assembly still be small enough to swallow but big enough to guarantee a Great Big Boom? Maybe, but I don't think strapping the goods to one's chest is going to go out of fashion.
posted by alumshubby at 12:55 PM on December 7, 2001