Comments on: Comments on 12942

Post number 12942

Sinner — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 14:34:05 -0800

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.)

By: Postroad

Postroad — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 14:37:55 -0800

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.

By: hellinskira

hellinskira — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 14:44:56 -0800

smuggle three pounds vaginally and a pound anally She's the bomb!

By: tomplus2

tomplus2 — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 14:48:23 -0800

..you've seen the movies, in the future, the do full body x-rays.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 14:55:30 -0800

In August I would have said that this was ridiculous and that no one would ever do something like this.

By: Nauip

Nauip — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:30:35 -0800

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.

By: Sinner

Sinner — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:36:22 -0800

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.

By: fuq

fuq — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:58:12 -0800

This post BLEW MY MIND UP!

By: verdezza

verdezza — Thu, 06 Dec 2001 23:54:24 -0800

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.

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 07 Dec 2001 05:23:56 -0800

Brings new meaning to: Bend over, this won't hurt a bit.

By: yesster

yesster — Fri, 07 Dec 2001 06:22:03 -0800

". . . 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.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Fri, 07 Dec 2001 12:55:42 -0800

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.