Perhaps the invasiveness of the body scanner/pat down inspections might be mitigated by replacing the "SECURITY" signs over the entry doorways with a more friendly sign saying simply, "Getting To Know You Better!".Alex Reid

I simply don't believe in such claims, I think such claims are totally frivolous and have no basis in facts. I don't believe it is possible to hide enough material in "body cavities" to bring down an airliner. Either there is not enough cavity "volume" or explosive materials are not deadly enough per unit of volume. And it seems this guy built his whole article and argumentation on this single premise.

What difference does it make whether or not he has enough inside his rectum to bring down the aircraft? All the underwear bomber managed to do was burn his scrotum and look at the insanity that ensued afterwards. All they have to do is cook up a new way to make a ruckus on a plane every month and they will bankrupt the US in a few years as we spend half a billion on new devices after each incident to look for that particular object. Americans are pretty well wrapped up in fear these days and it plays directly into the terrorist's strategy of bankrupting the US.

All the underwear bomber managed to do was burn his scrotum and look at the insanity that ensued afterwards. All they have to do is cook up a new way to make a ruckus on a plane every month and they will bankrupt the US in a few years as we spend half a billion on new devices after each incident to look for that particular object. Americans are pretty well wrapped up in fear these days and it plays directly into the terrorist's strategy of bankrupting the US.

Kevin, with all due respect, I think these guys really meant to bring down airliner and not to trigger another round of improved scanners or to bankrupt US or to cause further inconvenience for passengers. I don't think their Allah is satisfied with anything else than lots of deaths and destruction to infidels.

Kevin, with all due respect, I think these guys really meant to bring down airliner and not to trigger another round of improved scanners or to bankrupt US or to cause further inconvenience for passengers. I don't think their Allah is satisfied with anything else than lots of deaths and destruction to infidels.

I've no doubt those who act do want to bring one down. But they don't need to actually succeed at that in order to bankrupt America. Killing is but one way to their goal of destroying America. I think you underestimate them when you dismiss them as merely wanting to kill people. Don't underestimate your enemy.

I don't think we are anywhere close to "bankrupt". The budget of TSA is less than 1/10 of 1% of the GDP. Immediately after 9/11 it was a big shock to the economy and the growth was practically zero or negative - this is where huge impact on economy did materialize. The impact was clearly multiple times higher han total cost of airplanes and buildings destroyed. So my claim is that unless they succeed again we will only see absolutely negligible impact on the economy. So yes, they desperately need better results than someone's rectum on fire to have impact.

Kevin, with all due respect, I think these guys really meant to bring down airliner and not to trigger another round of improved scanners or to bankrupt US or to cause further inconvenience for passengers. I don't think their Allah is satisfied with anything else than lots of deaths and destruction to infidels.

By no means do I want to trivialize the potential personal harm of such an attack….But, by Al Qaeda’s own statements economic impact is underlying objective (of targeting airlines).According to an Al Qaeda statement they dubbed the parcel bomb operation hemorrhage.They pointed to the $4200 cost and the massive disruption it inflicted.I think it’s important to recognize this is an economic tactic. And yes bankruptcy is their end game.

I don't think we are anywhere close to "bankrupt". The budget of TSA is less than 1/10 of 1% of the GDP. Immediately after 9/11 it was a big shock to the economy and the growth was practically zero or negative - this is where huge impact on economy did materialize. The impact was clearly multiple times higher han total cost of airplanes and buildings destroyed. So my claim is that unless they succeed again we will only see absolutely negligible impact on the economy. So yes, they desperately need better results than someone's rectum on fire to have impact.

And what is our deficit right now?Al-Queda will win if our country spends $1,000,000 for every $100 they spend. Al-Queda will win if they turn our free society into a police state. Al-Queda will win if they change our way of life as Americans. No one may know how to win this against Al-Queda. But I think that Al-Queda will know when they cannot win this. And that is when they do succeed in bringing down an airliner again and the most attention they get is a blurb on the news crawl at the bottom of the tv screen while the main story is Lady Gaga's latest highjinks.

Al-Queda will win if they change our way of life as Americans.

Yes, that would be a pity and I would also agree that would be a 'win', if only they managed to bring as much control as governments in Europe do exercise today over their citizens. I will let you know when I feel we are close to reaching that stage. :(

Simple statistic....Who has more to lose....Al-Queda has nothing.....USA is a world leader....Take nothing from nothing and your left with nothing.Take a fraction away from the USA then they've accomplished something. I guess their strategy is to keep on chipping away....What have they got to lose anyways.....NOTHING.

No, but what's the difference in sitting next to him on an aircraft versus a train or a bus? He most likely would have hurt/maimed only those in his immediate vicinity. Last time I checked there was no screening when getting on buses or trains.

So? Should we rduce aircraft security to the same level as buses and trains and give the terrorists a free run?

So? Should we rduce aircraft security to the same level as buses and trains and give the terrorists a free run?

Nope...just take a more common sense approach about it. Don't randomly select a 95 year old World War 2 Vet in a Wheel Chair with a Colostomy Bag and a 6 year old girl on the way to Disney World for a pat down and allow the group of healthy mid-20 year old guys through as they were not randomly selected......Because of course the Terrorists are using Old war vets and young children to take out airliners. I do agree that profiling doesn't work necessarily as terrorism is both foreign and domestic (Timothy McViegh). But no better way to upset the people with a system that is random. The system comes across as the assembly line in a McDonald's making Big Mac's, a mindless process which is leading to extreme frustration. Currently the random selections choose the obviously wrong choices allowing anyone else through in-between.Israel does security the best as they train their people to look for terrorists (and they do use profiling) all at the same time treat people as guests in the country. Better tools available to the staff and better experience for the traveler. And they do not randomly select their Veterans and Children for Pat Downs.... They are actually seeking out Terrorists. Kind of makes sense doesn't it. They are the best in the world at it.So when the system randomly selects that 95 year old World War 2 Vet in a Wheel Chair with a Colostomy Bag, perhaps instead thank him for his service to the country and let him through. Focus on the group of mid-20 year old guys with a few questions and select anyone suspicious for extra screening, and give the little girl on the way to Disney World a little smile instead of a pat down. The system currently does not work like that.

So? Should we rduce aircraft security to the same level as buses and trains and give the terrorists a free run?

I never said that. That was simply my reply to your (assumed) assertion that this guy sitting next to me on an aircraft is somehow more dangerous than if he was sitting on a train. Actually on a train he would be probably more dangerous because he could have carried 10 times the amount of explosives and did not have to rely on capacity of his rectum. We are getting a bit OT and off the original point I made - my point was simply that I see no proof that a man could use his 'cavities' to bring down an airliner.

---- my point was simply that I see no proof that a man could use his 'cavities' to bring down an airliner.

I take it that you have never placed a half stick of ordinary dynamite so as to shatter a 2000 lb granite boulder.Alex Reid

Let me qualify what I claim.1. person uses his/her 'cavities' to carry a stick (or half or whatever will do the job)2. he passes through all the airport screening in the US (he is a passenger, not a pilot)3. while en-route he then successfully detonates this stick inside himself or manages to pull it out and then detonates it.4. as a result of the above everybody dies and aircraft meets its violent endI claim that (4) would never occur based on things going wrong somewhere in the above chain.

I take it that you have never placed a half stick of ordinary dynamite so as to shatter a 2000 lb granite boulder.Alex Reid

http://www.youtube.com/user/mangolia1#p/u/6/_VYmvb6LHWENot dynamite...but that's what to do with a boulder :(