X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.0-r372567 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k7EKp8nw012410 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:51:09 -0400 Received: from ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu (ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.144]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7EKp7CN010385; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:51:07 -0400 Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0E237.1ABE0.14220 ; 14 Aug 2006 16:51:03 -0400 Received: from brio.eecs.umich.edu (brio.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.52]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7EKp1v7010365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:51:01 -0400 Received: from brio.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) by brio.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k7EKp0W4027014 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:51:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (magerko Æ localhost) by brio.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) with ESMTP id k7EKp0Kj027011 for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:51:00 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: brio.eecs.umich.edu: magerko owned process doing -bs X-X-Sender: magerko Æ brio.eecs.umich.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <44DF6DE6.1010203 Æ umich.edu> <3CE327AF-BB1E-466D-95C9-3F9E6E0F3D89 Æ umich.edu>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r372567 (2006-01-26) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:51:00 -0400 (EDT) To: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Brian Magerko Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 692 Why stop with explosives. If you really want to being the Western world to a halt, do the following: - obtain the plague or some other nasty virus - infect yourself with said virus - buy yourself a few international flights going through Ohare, Heathrow, and wherever else - cough a lot If you wanted to target a single country, just use domestic flights. THAT is the kind of attack that is scary as hell. But again, what security measures will we go through to prevent it? Surveillance...I hope they surveil the hell out of terrorist cells to see what they're up to, sure. In terms of dealing with the general public though, we can either start buying gas masks or try to improve the world (tm) and make people consider NOT destroying us. B- On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Robert Felty wrote: > James, > > You are right to point out this inconsistency. However, consider the fact > that there is very little security on passenger train travel in the U.S. and > in most of Europe. In the U.S., not many people actually ride trains, so > blowing up a few would not be that big a setback, but in Europe it could be. > Blowing up a bunch of railroad tracks in the U.S. could really cripple > shipping though (or major highways). I am not trying to give the terrorists > ideas here, but let's say that they start targeting some of these outlets as > well. We will have to build up more and more security measures. Where does it > stop? We will never get one step ahead of the terrorists. That is the > advantage of the attacker. > > I still don't know all the details of the latest attempted attack, but it > sounds like these attackers never even set foot in an airport. Their plan was > foiled long before that. Evidence recovered after the 9/11 attacks shows that > it also probably could have been avoided by similar means, i.e. by using > intelligence agencies, without inconveniencing travelers. > > Rob > > > On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:53 PM, James W Mickens wrote: > >>> Back to Nate and Danny's ideas. I for one would rather not >>> have security in airports whatsoever. I would be plenty happy >>> to take my chances. I don't think that every plane would >>> suddenly start blowing up. >> >> I strongly disagree. By your own analysis, "there are lots of people who >> hate the U.S." and will do organizations like Hamas "a favor by harming the >> evil U.S." If this is true, it couldn't possibly be the case that our >> airplanes would be reasonably safe with no security at our airports. In >> fact, we can almost be certain that there would be a huge upswing in >> terrorists attacks, if only because Bin Laden is on the record as saying >> that he *wants* to hit us again. Every one of the Bin Laden tapes contains >> ominous warnings about future attacks. He is not being sarcastic. In >> conjunction with addressing the root causes of terrorism, we have to >> protect ourselves against the people who already hate us now. We must be >> realistic about the dangers that face us. The British, American, and >> Pakistani intelligence agencies just broke up a major terrorist plot >> against airliners. This is the context for the entire conversation that >> we're having now. The threat is real. >> >> ~j >> >