Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
So if you are getting on a plane, and six guys who are traveling together and are speaking Arabic (and have thick accents when using English) to eachother are getting on your plane, you don't want them to have a little more scrutiny?
If you do what them scrutinized more then what the hell is your point?
If not ( I think you are lying) don't you think they will be more likely to mess with the plane than your average passenger?
|
I have repeatedly said that I do not have a fundamental objection to profiling.
I am only trying to point out the practical problems -- one, that it can be so broad as to be meaningless, and two, that it can and likely would become the dispositive factor so that a guy who actually intends to blow up a plane doesn't get extra scrutiny because, well, he looks white and has a british name.
So, what the hell is my point? My point is that your test misses the one guy we know about who has actually boarded a plane with explosives and the intent to use them in recent years. What the hell is your point?
And to answer your other question (since you are following ppnyc's mode of responding to the same post twice) -- according to the BBC, the explosive in Reid's shoes may have been powerful enough to destroy the plane -- it's not entirely clear. But, c'mon -- if you can get on board without being searched, it can't be too hard.
Quote:
|
The TATP would have been used to set alight more powerful explosives called PETN, which experts say would have been powerful enough to blow a hole in the side of the plane and cause it to crash.
|
link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1783237.stm
