A fair point actually, hadn't though of that. Careful, you're probably on a watch list now though. :) True, but the point remains he was taken down and subdued but passengers, regardless of how dangerous he actually was or not. In a post 9/11 world people won't sit there just assuming it's a normal hijacking anymore, they will most likely act. If it was a repeat of 9/11 and some guys with box cutters I'm guessing they would be in for a beating. I totally agree. Also, I think maybe you misunderstood. I'm not Pro-TSA, and I do think they go quite overboard and agree this stuff isn't protecting us, plus like we saw the other day, it's only creating lines at security which themselves become a new target. They don't even HAVE to get on the plane anymore, they can just attack that. This happened in Russia a few years ago with devastating consequences, granted it was an arrivals area, but same principle. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12268662 So again, I may be critical of that anarchist article, but only because they seem to be treating this guy a hero. And although I don't think the TSAs overreach is warranted, I certainly wouldn't call them a "terrorist organization" and say they deserve to be attacked and killed because of what they do. That's just disgusting. These anarchist groups have all these naive and idealistic views of how to take the government down, but no constructive ways to actually fix it or make it better.Really? What if they all deposited those 3 oz. samples in a compartment in a designated bathroom, where a designated person would assemble the device? On a transatlantic or transpacific flight, there's plenty of time to do all that without arousing suspicion.
Also, c'mon man. The shoe bomber? That dude was asking to get caught.
I maintain that if someone really wants to do something on a commercial aircraft, they will find a way to do it, given sufficient motivation.
You might be right, for all I know. That would be damned inconvenient. Knock on wood! I didn't think you were pro-TSA, just trying to shore up my point. I'm not aligned with the intent or thrust of this article either, but I can see where the line of thought comes from. Again, to me it seems overly simplistic and as you say naive and idealistic. When I was younger, the idea of taking down the establishment to create something shiny, new and ideal was very appealing, as it is to many young people. One complaint I do have about our current political system is that real, effective change often takes a long time to accomplish and the length of political terms, while necessary, do sometimes create roadblocks as some politicians jockey for the public's favor by making promises constructed out of half-truths and outright fabrications all while re-framing and twisting issues to divert funds to their own interests. I don't have any answers, but my observation is that a lot of the time, it's us getting in our own way to the benefit of someone who has their hands on the strings with a much better map of the political landscape. As you say, hijackings have been stopped by the public in the post 9/11 world and it seems to me that real security for the public will come with active public participation rather than making demands of politicians, who are likely to (by necessity or choice) choose the cheapest option, which is bound to under-deliver.Careful, you're probably on a watch list now though. :)
I totally agree. Also, I think maybe you misunderstood. I'm not Pro-TSA, and I do think they go quite overboard and agree this stuff isn't protecting us, plus like we saw the other day, it's only creating lines at security which themselves become a new target.