Saturday, June 30, 2007

Another Terror Plot Foiled, So Whats Next?

Yesterday in London two car bombings were stopped. Then today an attempted attack on Glasgow's airport in Scotland. The two cars loaded with gasoline, compressed gas, and roofing were caught because of escaping smoke in one case and the smell of gasoline in another. And then this afternoon an SUV tried to crash into the terminal and burst into flames. Thankfully only one person was injured. So what is the next security step we're going to see in response to this?

I don't think there is an effective one. About 11 months ago a terror plot was uncovered to blow up planes using liquid explosives smuggled past security, and so liquids were banned on planes. But what can be done to protect against today's attacks? Close roads outside airport terminals or search cars? Yes, but this doesn't address the situation. Two of the attempted attacks didn't involve air travel. The two cars were parked on the street, one outside a night club. We can turn airports into impenetrable fortresses, but any populated location where cars have access to could be easily targeted.

To be fair to the United States government, they have not overreacted with lots of useless protective measures. We have not gone to Red Alert. Perhaps they have realized it wouldn't do any good. But if these plots cross the Atlantic and start happening in the United States, we will be in trouble. Its not that they'll have to attack lots of locations, a couple of car bombings and the fear will do the rest and send our economy downward. 9/11 stopped people from spending money on plane tickets, car bombings would stop people from spending money out.

I'm going to stop here and save my regular faithful readers my typical 10 page diatribe against trying to achieve a complete sense of security, as none is possible, that arises every time something like this occurs. (Feel free to click on the subjects below to see these old posts.)

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Terror Plot Triggers Increased Aviation Security.


If you haven't heard by now, (You really need to pay more attention to the news.) there was a foiled terror plot on British flights to the United States. 24 suspects were arrested in England. The plot involved smuggling in explosives in liquids and gels, such as beverages, toothpaste, etc., onto flights and using some electronic device to detonate them.

Consequently, all liquids and gels have been banned on flights in the United States by the TSA, in Britain, and other countries around the globe. That includes beverages including water, deodorant, toothpaste, hair spray, hair gel, suntan lotion, cosmetics, lip balm, contact solution; as well as all blood, water, and other bodily fluids still in your body. All shoes have to be x-rayed now. Furthermore, in Britain flights to the US had all carry-on baggage banned. The only thing allowed was travel documents in a clear plastic bag and medications. Baby formula is allowed, but it has to be tasted in front of inspectors. In Britain, laptops, mobile phones, and mp3 players were banned on flights. The banned items can be put in checked baggage. I don't know about you, but I don't trust the airlines handling my laptop and other electronic devices. If your baggage is lost, you would be out all that data. And what would someone do without there cell phone, they'd be helpless. "Alright, I need to call home. The number is. I don't know." No one knows any phone numbers anymore.

I say why make baby formula an exception? Sure, it will prevent babies from flying, but what's wrong with that? Have you ever enjoyed listening to a baby scream on a flight? Let's at least let a little good come from these tighter security measures and keep babies off planes. More importantly, why would a terrorist care about harming a baby, if they have no problem blowing up a plane full of civilians, men, woman, and children? The exception could prove catastrophic, so get rid of it.

I've come up with a series of draconian security measures in addition to those already in place that will create the most secure flights ever. First of all, let's follow the British's example and have no carry-on, period. No liquids, no gels, no electronics, no books (you could give someone a paper cut), nothing. Why take chances? So what is one to do on the plane? Try watching the in flight movie. Seriously, you'll have to. No headphones will be allowed, because you might be able to stab someone with the jack, so the movies will play out loud. You could sleep, you just won't have any pillows or blankets. Talk to your fellow passengers. Just be sure not to complain or joke about the new security measures, because only terrorists will have a problem with them. You can't say bomb on the airplane, neither can you say suntan lotion, shampoo, any other liquid's name, nor unhappy, "this sucks," or any other words of discontent. You're not a terrorist, are you? You could try reading the in-flight magazine. Actually, that won't be allowed either, just like a book you could give someone a paper cut. Same thing for the safety instructions, which no one actually reads anyways. You'll have to pay attention during the safety demonstration instead of waiting to find out what to do when the emergency actually happens. Actually, those flotation devices will be removed because they're too big a risk, so forget that part.

Furthermore, what you can wear will be restricted. When you get to the airport, open up you bags to be checked, take your shoes off, socks off, jacket off, hat off, etc. And put it all in the bag. You're allowed to wear a swimsuit, and that's it. More skin means less places to hide explosives or other weapons. Now before anyone gets excited, everyone is going to be dressed like that. Young, old, skinny, fat. By the way, you'll also be given a cavity search, just to be one the safe side. Restaurants will still be open past security checkpoints, but remember, "no shoes, no shirt, no service." I feel sorry for people with layovers.

Another option instead of having to wear a swimsuit on your flight is this. When you get to security, you'll enter a changing room, remove all your clothes and throw them away, and be given some underwear, shorts, and a short sleeve T-shirt. All that will of course be built in to the ticket price, so don't worry. After all, you won't be allowed to have your credit card on you. Actually, one credit card will be allowed so you can buy clothing past the checkpoint. And also in case your checked bags are lost, and you're totally screwed.

Now we won't have to worry about any attacks in the passenger cabin. But we still have all the checked baggage. So, we'll just ban checked baggage as well, very simple. Then you won't have to worry about the airlines losing the luggage. How will you travel with anything, you might ask. Well, you won't. When you get to your destination you can buy everything. We will build malls at airports for arriving passengers. Before you throw away your digital camera, mobile phone, laptop computer, and iPod, you'll be given an opportunity to back all your data up on the internet before entering security. This will ensure your safety and stimulate the economy. So that you can afford buying everything from overpriced airport stores, we'll have another tax cut. Now, because the higher your income the more you are likely to fly, the tax cut will of course inversely proportional to your income. So the poor, who can't afford to fly, won't receive anything. It's only fair. Additionally, the lost of checked bags and carry on will make up for the increasing weight of Americans causing increased fuel consumption. A new class will be created, steerage, down in the former baggage compartment of the airplane.

So the good thing is security lines will move fast since people won't have anything to carry on or check? So that means the time between one's flight and check-in time is reduced? You would think so, wouldn't you. And it would, except you'll have to get to the airport 6 hours early? Why's that? Every possible attack from the passenger cabin has not been eliminated yet. This next security measure may seem inconvenient, to say the least, but rest assured it is absolutely necessary to ensure almost but not quite total security. You'll check in and go through security. While going through security you'll be sequestered and given a laxative to make sure you don't try to sneak anything on by swallowing it. You'll also have to throw up, so be sure you eat something before you leave for the airport. (The plus side is you can eat fattening food without worrying about your waistline, since it will be thrown up anyways. )While we're at it, let's just ban the use of the lavatories on board aircraft since there is too much privacy. For that matter, to make sure you don't retrieve any items while in the terminal restrooms, we'll close those to. Don't worry about going to the restroom, you'll be given some Immodium after the security checkpoint.

So that is how we obtain total aviation security. It may seem a bit overboard and inconveniencing, but its the only way. It's only a matter of time before such measures are in place. So, Secretary Chertoff, if you read this blog and take up these measures, all I ask in payment is this, a private jet to avoid the hassle of increased security.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict

First of all, Israel had the right to defend itself when it was attacked by Hezbollah. Lebanon failed to do its job as a sovereign state of policing its own territory. If the United States was attacked by a terrorist organization in Canada or the United States, we would go all out in taking the threat out. When two American soldiers were kidnapped in Iraq, we did go all out trying to find them.

However, I believe Israel has gone too far and in the long term is shooting itself in the foot. Yes, Israel needed to take out the attackers. But, demolishing Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, power plants, roads, bridges, etc., was too far. There is now no road in or out of Lebanon. This means international aid, food and medicine, can't get in. Furthermore, in Southern Lebanon any moving vehicle is now a target. Southern Lebanon is also cut off from the rest of Lebanon. A few meager supplies were being delivered by hand across a fallen log over the Litani river. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14234194/) Hezbollah, which provides social services, has stepped up and is providing aid for those in Southern Lebanon. Consequently, this is going to result in converting all of them into Hezbollah supporters. In the first few days of the war, you saw on the news Lebanese who sympathized with Israel. At first many were angry at Hezbollah for bringing this upon them. But as their country was torn apart, that has changed. Support for the current Lebanese government will undoubtedly decline as its failed to solve the problem, and popular support for Hezbollah will grow. How will the Lebanese government be able to do any good now?

What is a state with a legitimate responsibility to defend its citizens suppose to do when the attacking force has mixed in with civilians? When weapons are stored in residential areas, hospitals, etc? Do they not attack and let the tactic work, or do they say its too bad but attack anyways. To be fair, Israel has warned people to leave certain areas, and not to drive, etc. But there is no way for many people to leave now. Hezbollah on the other hand is not targeting military targets, but civilian targets. Their attacks are random, at least Israel's attacks are aimed at Hezbollah, although its complicated by the fact that Hezbollah mixed in with civilians. I don't have the answer for this question. If you do have an answer, feel free to post it.

I'm not sure how the fighting will be stopped. It appears any plans that both Israel and Lebanon agree to are far off. I've never had much faith in the UN. I hope they can do something to stop the violence, but I'm skeptical. The United States really can't expect to be seen as an honest broker after so much support for Israeli and saying they didn't want the fighting to cease. At least we got the foreigners out though. That's all that really matters, isn't it?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Homeland Security


I was watching NBC Nightly News, and they say that since the train bombing in India security has been stepped up here in the United States at train and subway stations. I really don't see the point of that security increase. (not even taking into consideration that it probably wasn't an al-Qaida attack but a local cell) The terrorists must know that after a terrorist attack security is raised for a while, and aren't going to plan a second terrorist attack a little while after one attact. No, if they're going to attack I would think they would attack simultaneously, like on September 11 or the London bombings. Overall we're probably safer after a terrorist attack. Take September 11, all civilian airplanes were grounded for days afterward. (I'm not saying the planes shouldn't have been grounded.) Now I would doubt al-Qaida would have planned another hijacking for September 12. Even if planes were flying passengers wouldn't let another hijacking occur. (Perhaps I overestimate the intelligence of terrorists since terrorism is irrational to begin with.) We improved aviation security neglecting that of trains, which are far more vulnerable. We're always fighting our last battles.

Another story was that Homeland Security had on its list of possible terrorist targets a petting zoo, donut shop, etc. You got to be kidding me. Every place is a possible terrorist target, but we can't physically protect every location all the time, its impossible. There is always going to be risks. We have to prioritize and apparently Homeland Security is having some trouble doing that.

Ultimately we have to face the fact that we're fragile, mortal beings and any day we could die (no matter how much we spend on Homeland Security) and someday we will die. Whether it be from a terrorist attack or car accident tomorrow, or dieing in our sleep 50 years from now, we have to be ready for our eventual death. However, we don't have to live in a perpetual fear of death, as long as things are made right with our creator, God, by repenting of our sins and believing in Jesus as our Lord and savior. Then we can look forward to the time when we are called home to God.

Labels: , , ,