Yep, what we were just talking about the other day? Any place where crowds gather is going to be an inviting target. I have no doubt that the reason something like this hasn't happened in the USA isn't because of TSA, but because the investigators and intel community have been doing a great job.

News reports are still pretty sketchy. I saw one video clip of an area inside a building that looked like ticket counters. I don't know if it was the airport or the train station. I saw another video what looked like about 1000 people standing around in a tarmac area, in and among planes. Not a very safe environment for passengers. I presume that incoming flights were diverted.

The thought has occurred to me that since it all occurred in Brussels, this might not be Islamism, but something to do with anti-EU sentiment -- either something committed by an anti-EU group, or a false flag operation to discredit anti-EU groups. However, the attack does look like the kind of thing Islamists favor. I haven't heard anything about suspects.

Cousin Dave, I understand that the airport was closed, and inbound flights diverted, outgoing flights cancelled. Same with the train, tho it maybe just certain segments were shut down. Not that I would be inclined to take their metro today...

Brussels is on lock down.

I also understand that this happened in the departure terminal. So they got the explosives into the secure side of the facility undetected. Two explosions, about a minute apart. One is said to be a suicide bomber.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the first explosion was designed to get people running into the second.

It will be of interest to see if that person went thru the security line, or if they got entry another way, as air crew or via an airport employee.

Just saw a CNN report saying that at least one of the airport bombs went off in the security queue. That being the case, I'm a little surprised that there aren't more casualties than there are.

"The answer, of course, has never been having unskilled, often power-mad workers treat millions of people as likely terrorists but having skilled intelligence officers do investigative work and probable-cause-based policing."

This isn't a realistic answer either.

There will never be enough of these people, or enough tax payer money to hire them.
(You can't raise the ticket prices high enough to cover the cost and still get people to fly. )

Do you have any idea how many airports there are in the US?

You cover the airports in real security, and suicide bombers will divert to softer targets like sporting events, and shopping malls on holidays.

It's those darned Baptists again, isn't it?

It's those darned Baptists again, isn't it?

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 22, 2016 8:40 AM

No, if they had bombed an abortion clinic, you would know it was the Baptists.

Black Church, The KKK,( although a lot of them were Baptists too.)

@ IDA - the 'departure terminal' is likely a confusion due to translation - my best reading of Dutch/Flemish language news reports is actually 'departure hall', which I suspect means the landside of the security checkpoint.

llater,

llamas

A very, very close call for my friend in Belgium. Been emailing her and Facebooking her and I just got this email with a picture of her and her cute dad outside the Brussels airport, trying to get home.

My dad and I were at the Brussels airport this morning: had we been checking in just one hour later, it could have been us blown to bits! As it turns out we were safely at the gate and about to board our flight when they called to evacuate the building. Now borders are closed and we’re at a hotel resting and waiting to see what we can do next.

"You cover the airports in real security, and suicide bombers will divert to softer targets like sporting events, and shopping malls on holidays."

That this has NOT happened in the USA, despite our being The Great Satan, speaks to there being another agency stopping things.

Or the threat doesn't exist in the USA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-decade-ago-she-warned-of-radical-islam-in-belgiums-molenbeek/2015/11/18/433c8ce4-8d54-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html?tid=a_inl

Too bad they did not pay attention to what was in plain sight. (Kinda like us not sending 'spies' into Mosques.)

"That this has NOT happened in the USA, despite our being The Great Satan, speaks to there being another agency stopping things."

This has not happened YET in the USA.

I think it is because of two things. The first is pure dumb luck. The terrorists aren't particularly smart, and there really isn't a lot of public transportation other than the airports in the US unlike Europe.

We have had several terrorist attacks since 9-11 mostly aimed against our military but few of them have achieved a high body count.

One of the prime goals of terrorism is to shut down world wide commerce and make us afraid to travel.

The second reason is, unlike the sheeple in Europe, many average Americans are armed to the teeth. Terrorists are afraid of people who shoot back. (Like the Israelis do)

When Iran and the Norks have the ability to set off a nuke in the middle of Manhatten, that will be the kind of terrorist attack that will happen.

And afterwards, the hand wringers will be at it again, saying maybe if Obama had just given them *everything* they asked for, they'd have left us alone.

Groveling apologies don't cut it with the Arabs and the Persians folks. Just makes them believe they have the upper hand.

Right wing political parties will now sweep into power in Europe. And a generalized round up of terrorist kith and kin and mass deportations are not far behind.

Meanwhile, we are back in Iraq with boots on the ground. Did you hear about that? Maybe leaving wasn't such a good idea?

How much of the Muslim population is radicalized to the point where they can commit atrocities like this? Ten percent? Five percent? Two Percent? Whatever # it is if there are a billion Muslims you are talking about 20 to 100 million people hell bent on killing and enslaving the rest of the world? Now what percent is sympathetic to the cause of radical Islam? Another 10 to 20 percent? That's another 100 to 200 million Muslims. Seems like a big problem especially if we tip toe and try to ignore or minimize the scope of the problem.

One final question, what percentage of our leadership is willing to ignore and minimize the problem of radical Islam? I have my ideas and sadly it is a much higher number than percentage of radical to non radical Islamists.

the 'departure terminal' is likely a confusion due to translation

Agreed. "Ticket counter" would be a better description. I'm kind of surprised there haven't been more of these attacks: before the security checkpoint, and if you pick the right time, lots and lots of people waiting in line.

This seems to be fairly good reporting, including videos:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3503928/Two-explosions-heard-Brussels-Airport.html

Alphonse Youla, who was working on a stand putting security wrapping around suitcases, said: 'I heard a man shout some Arabic words then an explosion... then a second explosion, a massive explosion, much bigger.'

Speaking with blood on his hands and struggling to hold back tears, he added: 'It was a horror. I saw at least seven people dead. There was blood. People had lost legs. You could see there bodies but no legs.'

He added: 'I saw two men face down with blood pouring out of their heads. The injuries were so awful. You cannot imagine. People were so injured.
'I did not see the man who shouted in Arabic as he was behind me. I just heard the words. I don't speak Arabic so I don't know what he said.'
In the aftermath, thousands of people waiting for flights this morning were penned inside the terminal as police sealed off the shattered arrivals hall.

I'm pretty sure the Arabic was I hate flying and I hate waiting so screw you all.

Amy; good to hear that your friend and her family are safe. That's one good thing about email, facebook, etc. The "instant" communication is a godsend in situations like this - I went through a bit of nerve-wracking time when many of us didn't know how a good friend fared in the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Luckily, it turned out that he was okay. Still, a couple of days of nervous waiting was far better than several weeks.

As for this terror attack - as some say; never let a tragedy go to waste. The Deputy Commissioner Public Information, Stephen P. Davis sent a tweet this morning:

New York City Alerts (@NYCityAlerts) March 22, 2016

His last paragraph reads:

"These attacks come at a time when the federal government has propsed cutting terrorism funding to New York City by roughly 90 million dollars. Any cut in terrorism funding to New York - to what is widely recognized as the nation's top terror target - would be irresponsible."

Even though he mentions what a tragedy the attack is in Belgium; he does seem - as so many bureaucrats are - as concerned as getting his money from the taxpayer.

I'm not trying to ignore the good work and no doubt, diligent work that so many in security are doing; but, this is what the TSA and so many other "Homeland Security" forces have become - just another way to waste federal tax dollars without doing any real good.

Some of that 90 million that is earmarked for being cut is to pay NY police overtime so they can set up "random subway checks."

I've been stuck in those. They set up a checkpoint inside the subway system - basically causing a bottleneck in an already congested system - supposedly to check everyone's bags. Here's the catch though, you don't have to consent to a search. If you don't agree to be searched then you simply have to leave the subway. I didn't do it; but, I know some people who have gotten around these checkpoints by going to another entrance or another subway line! Some security, huh?!

The second reason is, unlike the sheeple in Europe, many average Americans are armed to the teeth. Terrorists are afraid of people who shoot back.

Why would a suicide bomber be afraid of someone who might "shoot back"?

Many of them aren't suicide. Just bombers. Also, even the suicide ones don't want to go cheap. Getting shot and being the only one to die kind of defeats the purpose.

The second reason is, unlike the sheeple in Europe, many average Americans are armed to the teeth. Terrorists are afraid of people who shoot back.

Why would a suicide bomber be afraid of someone who might "shoot back"?

Kevin at March 22, 2016 11:58 AM

Because the vast majority of terrorist attacks aren't suicide bombers.

They are looking for soft targets and maximum carnage. They also like places where they can blend in ethnically. This is why New York City is such a great hunting ground, and Boise Idaho is not.

Amy knows Saad!

Because on the 24/7 computer internet, it's always time to namedrop!

"A smart terrorist would attack the TSA line. Imagine having to go thru security to be cleared for security to be cleared for the plane?

"lujlp at March 21, 2016 12:17 PM"

Yikes.

I love this man.

Yes, let the slacktivism begin! I expect profile pics will change all over Facebook. I feel safer already.

I am really pissed today. We were meant to board a plan and head to Frankfurt and the on to Cairo for 2 weeks. Sheep Dad and I faced massive opposition from both sets of parents as of this morning. Neither set ever approved, but my mom's health is fragile and I just couldn't put her through the angst, but I am really pissed. So, to keep peace we agreed to cancel.

The Tragedy In Belgium Shows Up The Utter Fallacy That The TSA Will Keep You Safe

No. Wrong. Way wrong.

The TSA's mission is to keep you safe from this tragedy.

Which killed almost ten times as many people.

The moral of this tragedy is that there is no stopping Religion of Death(tm) splodeydopes, but the further out you can keep them, the lower the butcher's bill.

There are other morals as well.

Other than Islam is a death cult that hopes to put communism to shame as being way too cuddly?

Yes; others.

Whether the TSA is effective or not (note: I'm not saying it is), you cannot form a perfect security net. Something's going to get through, especially if your security net remains static.

The question is how much freedom are you going to give up to get a higher level of security. The best way to avoid having anyone blown up on an airplane is to ban travel by airplane. But then we give up the far-ranging mobility that is vital to our modern economy and the freedom to travel that is vital to our society. And the terrorists will move on to other places where people gather. Do we ban crowds?

George Patton once noted that the experts keep coming up with new weapons and defenses, and the enemy keeps finding a way around them. The TSA may have been an effective response to 9/11 fifteen years ago, but it's little more than a metaphorical Maginot Line today. And if we continue to rely on outdated defenses, a metaphorical Guderian is going to smash his way through our undefended Belgian frontier.

Unionizing the TSA was a mistake. Unions fight to keep static the processes and procedures. The TSA needs to be a nimble organization utilizing the latest technology and procedures to identify and stop threats. And that's going to take more than "repurposed mall food court workers."

"This has not happened YET in the USA.

I think it is because of two things. The first is pure dumb luck. The terrorists aren't particularly smart, and there really isn't a lot of public transportation other than the airports in the US unlike Europe.

{snip}

The second reason is, unlike the sheeple in Europe, many average Americans are armed to the teeth. Terrorists are afraid of people who shoot back. (Like the Israelis do)"

Nope.

Maybe you've seen this before - the short story is that the USA has tens of thousands of "soft" targets with larger populations than the Brussels airport.

In addition to offering the possibility of diverting some of the hazardous materials we ship constantly, terror attacks in the US aren't confined to aircraft - they were just convenient, and careful thinkers realized they could place America in a panic and keep it there indefinitely, aided by the powers of government. That care disposes of the assertion that these people are not smart.

Here's a few things TSA can't stop:

Access to the aircraft by service crew. The plane has to be serviced. Just as the Miami PD has found repeatedly that it's impossible to keep local detectives covered when a few thousand dollars to a clerk will buy their personnel file, it's a cinch to buy access to a plane. An IED can be loaded on board, or applied to the aircraft skin, or loaded in a wheelwell while it's on the ramp.
This sort of thing would be aided where the TSA agents are already involved in crime. Gonna stick up for them?

Attack at the gate. I posted this 4 1/2 years ago... The lengthy wait for TSA agents to feel the passengers (do they change their gloves yet?) produces a tasty bottleneck, into which a bomb can easily be placed. And this actually doesn't have to be real to be effective! Just have your guy drop a backpack on the floor and run off shouting something (I have to go!! Don't move my bag!!). As he runs into the Men's Room because he has an urgent issue, the airport will lock down.
Of course, if it goes off, carnage. And no one at TSA will lose their job. TSA apologists will still be here calling Amy names for not wanting to be groped.

Attack from outside the gate. Although a look at the Joint Air Crash Data Evaluation Center Web site will show that a) NO commercial airliner has EVER been downed by small-arms fire to the airframe, and b) several airliners have survived explosions or SAM strikes - one man with a rifle at the airport fence can prevent as many airliners as he can hit from flying. Just hit tailfins. It's property damage, too, not terrorism - until the clamor arises.

Attack from general aviation aircraft. Damn, damn, damn those freedom-loving Americans anyway! They own thousands of private aircraft! We must ban them all! They can be used to strike a commercial airliner on takeoff, causing it to crash. Hey, it's not as easy as flying into a building, but it's 'way more immune to fighter intercept.

But wait - what about cropdusters?

Oh, yeah. We can't ban them. Agriculture depends on them. Even though one lap of Michigan's crowded football stadium with the pesticide could... hmmm.

Attack on the general public. Friday night high school football games, city promotions like art shows downtown, college sports, the NFL, NBA and MLB all bring thousands together in an activity that is not praising Allah, and thus must be halted. Most have no idea or opportunity to determine if bombs are there or are real.

The antidote to most of this is FBI work, with informants. None of it is accomplished by fondling passengers. And that's the key: if a determined enemy were a) actually out there, and b) another agency was not stopping them, this sort of stuff would happen.

But it doesn't. There's no enemy, or the FBI, etc., is stopping them, and rubbing Amy isn't good for anything but getting human scum off.

I note that the link a few posts above about the "no foul play" crash in the Sinai doesn't identify a situation that the TSA would have reliably prevented, as their own audits indicate, so I wonder why it was offered.

I note that the link a few posts above about the "no foul play" crash in the Sinai doesn't identify a situation that the TSA would have reliably prevented, as their own audits indicate, so I wonder why it was offered.

You assume a fact not in evidence; indeed, the evidence contradicts it.

The splodeydopes in Belgium would have vastly preferred to kill hundreds, rather than dozens.

But they were stuck with dozens, because Belgian airport security, whose procedures are essentially identical to the TSA's, is sufficiently good at excluding bombs big enough to bring down planes that the terrorists didn't want to risk getting caught.

In places without decent security, it is very easy to get a bomb on a plane.

Aircraft servicing people go through the same screening that passengers do, BTW.

"Aircraft servicing people go through the same screening that passengers do, BTW."

The personnel do, but not the stuff they bring in... how would the TSA do it? Their grunt doesn't know if the metal box with the wires and hoses sticking out is a bomb or an outflow valve controller. And then there's the tons (literally) of stuff that is brought in to stock all of the sterile-side restaurants and shops. I mentioned the other day what I once observed in STL, where a fast-food worker pulled a pallet of supplies on a cart through the security checkpoint with nothing more than an inspection of the paperwork. As Raddy points out, the drug cartels in Miami have been wildly successful at getting drug shipments on planes -- not just anywhere in the plane either, but in places like avionics bays that are inaccessible to both the pax and the crew.

If someone wants to get a bomb on a plane, and they have the resources, airport security isn't going to stop them. If the Brussels terrorists didn't blow up a plane, I have to conclude that they didn't because that was not their objective.

Cousin Dave:

The drug cartels have not been wildly successful at getting drug shipments on airplanes -- they have been occasionally successful, and been caught.

Plus, that ignores the significant difference between someone who is corruptible, and someone who is willing to participate in mass murder.

Obviously, it isn't impossible to get stuff through security. However, the chances of detection are sufficiently high as to deter the effort.

To think otherwise basically requires that the ISISholes don't desire to do what is easy.

. If the Brussels terrorists didn't blow up a plane, I have to conclude that they didn't because that was not their objective.

Seriously? You really, really think that they would have rather killed 30 instead of 300? Do you really think that the consequences of a destroyed airliner and 300 dead are less than what they managed?

You are arriving at that conclusion because it is self-justifying, not because it is logical.

@ Jeff Guinn -

'The drug cartels have not been wildly successful at getting drug shipments on airplanes -- they have been occasionally successful, and been caught.'

The number of cases where drug shipments on airplanes have been detected tells you precisely nothing about how many shipments got through undetected.

'Obviously, it isn't impossible to get stuff through security. However, the chances of detection are sufficiently high as to deter the effort.'

Self-evident nonsense. When repeated tests of the TSA show that your chance of getting dangerous items like guns and bombs through 'security' is better than 95% - 19 times out of 20 - then that is really no deterrent. The terrorists have moved on from trying to get things onto the plane as passengers, as the Brussels attack and others clearly show. As with most government activities, TSA is working furiously (if ineffectively) to counter the last threat but three - and, as we see, in doing so, creating the perfect environment (large groups of people trapped in small spaces) that the terrorists are now starting to exploit.

Cousin Dave has it precisely right - the terrorists in Brussels achieved their planned goals, which did not include attacks on aircraft. When they want to attack aircraft, they do so. When they don't, they don't. And they don't share your fascination with body count - when you can achieve your goals by killing 30, and do it so easily, killing more doesn't offer any added benefit. This latest attack has the whole Western world running around in crazed confusion, as all the prior ones did, at a total cost that likely was less than U$ 1000. This fits precisely with their pattern, which is to have no pattern. Each attack is different, on different venues, in different ways. And the ultimate goal is not to kill huge numbers of people, although that may be an incidental benefit - their goal is to continuously throw the West into a state of confusion and impotence, and cause Western governments to burn ever-more of their economic resources and the liberties of their peoples chasing a threat that can never be caught. They can't kill millions - but they don't have to. When killing a few dozen people throws hundreds of millions of people into a state of abject fear and confusion, and causes governments to spend untold billions in useless posturing and ineffective 'security' measures - why do any more? Job done.

llater,

llamas

The number of cases where drug shipments on airplanes have been detected tells you precisely nothing about how many shipments got through undetected.

It doesn't tell you anything, either. But that doesn't stop you or Radwaste from extrapolating whatever you want.

Nor are you apparently informed about the kind of compartment searches that airplanes undergo now.

Self-evident nonsense. When repeated tests of the TSA show that your chance of getting dangerous items like guns and bombs through 'security' is better than 95% - 19 times out of 20 - then that is really no deterrent.

You are right, and wrong at the same time.

Yes, the stats look horrible. But they don't exist in a vacuum. The people doing the checkpoint screening can see the people in line. And if you don't think they are profiling, whether unconsciously or otherwise, then I suspect you aren't well acquainted with human nature.

The question is, and these tests don't answer it, is whether middle-eastern males would have nearly the same success rate as, say, 35 year old caucasian women.

In an ideal world, that wouldn't matter.

But in the real world, the risk of detection isn't nearly as uniform as you apparently insist.

Cousin Dave has it precisely right - the terrorists in Brussels achieved their planned goals, which did not include attacks on aircraft.

No, he has it exactly wrong in the same way you do.

You have absolutely no information to go on, yet you act as if you do. Obviously, they achieved their planned goals. However, it is an astonishing leap to assume that what they planned matched what they desired if they could have everything their own way, if their risk of detection was as low as you insist it is.

To make that claim, you really need to make some convincing argument that they consciously chose to pick targets that would cause less loss of life and economic damage than something else.

Why? Because they were feeling particularly cuddly that day?

@ Jeff Guinn, who wrote:

'The number of cases where drug shipments on airplanes have been detected tells you precisely nothing about how many shipments got through undetected.

It doesn't tell you anything, either. But that doesn't stop you or Radwaste from extrapolating whatever you want.'

Fabricate much? I 'extrapolated' nothing - I merely pointed out your logical fallacy.

'Yes, the stats look horrible. But they don't exist in a vacuum. The people doing the checkpoint screening can see the people in line. And if you don't think they are profiling, whether unconsciously or otherwise, then I suspect you aren't well acquainted with human nature.

The question is, and these tests don't answer it, is whether middle-eastern males would have nearly the same success rate as, say, 35 year old caucasian women.'

So what you're saying is that tests which show that more than 95% of threats get past TSA staff don't reflect reality, because the staff are profiling the passengers and 'red team' testers somehow have a better chance of getting things past the TSA than average passengers do?

(Incidentally, you have no data to support this assertion, since you know nothing of the appearance, ethnicity, age or gender of 'red team' testers. But we'll let that pass.)

However, perhaps you can explain to me how it is that certain groups of people are 'profiled' by TSA staff, and are more-likely to be able to get threats past them, but that somehow this is not a failure on the part of TSA and a gaping security hole?

Incidentally, multiple reports have shown that TSA 'profiling' efforts and training have been a complete failure and a vast waste of money. You only add to those failures when you claim that TSA staff 'profile' people in such a way that some people can get threats past them more-easily. I suspect that was not your intent.

llater,

llamas

Fabricate much? I 'extrapolated' nothing - I merely pointed out your logical fallacy.

No, you didn't. You implicitly agreed with Cousin Dave who said:

As Raddy points out, the drug cartels in Miami have been wildly successful at getting drug shipments on planes -- not just anywhere in the plane either, but in places like avionics bays that are inaccessible to both the pax and the crew.

That is a perfect example of assuming a fact not in evidence -- that is the fallacy.

And, based upon my experience, wildly successful is wildly wrong.

So what you're saying is that tests which show that more than 95% of threats get past TSA staff don't reflect reality, because the staff are profiling the passengers and 'red team' testers somehow have a better chance of getting things past the TSA than average passengers do?

(Incidentally, you have no data to support this assertion, since you know nothing of the appearance, ethnicity, age or gender of 'red team' testers. But we'll let that pass.)

Again, assuming a fact not in evidence. As it happens, I have read about those tests. Rather than emulate a realistic scenario, and run afoul of the PC police, the test mules bore no resemblance to the threat.

Do a little research, then get back to us.

"But that doesn't stop you or Radwaste from extrapolating whatever you want."

You're both calling the kettle black and totally blind.

As usual, you cannot demonstrate cause and effect for the measures you hold dear.

Everything you have stated depends on a religious extremist giving up on other targets in the USA because the mall workers are at the airport, "protecting" part of it, but not all of it.

Now that Brussels has paid for their ignorance in dealing with a threat, I had hoped you'd get it - because I noted this, as stated above, over four years ago.

Nope.

Even though THEY didn't stop a bomber, and THEY were using the exact same setup that the TSA forces on Americans to pat them down, forcing a bottleneck.

I called this years ago. What have you been right about?

Wanna go over a laptop bomb again, like the one used a few weeks ago?

Even though THEY didn't stop a bomber, and THEY were using the exact same setup that the TSA forces on Americans to pat them down, forcing a bottleneck.

I called this years ago. What have you been right about?

I have been right about what I have been right all along: checkpoint security keeps bombs off airplanes.

Since you are such a genius, how do we solve the problem of people in crowds?

As usual, you cannot demonstrate cause and effect for the measures you hold dear.

When was the last successful bombing of a Western airliner?

Did the shoe and panty bombers use those means because it is easy to get bombs past checkpoints?

Are Islamists not bombing our airplanes because they think it would be too mean?

Wanna go over a laptop bomb again, like the one used a few weeks ago?

I'm dying to hear what your point is. That because a bomb got through Somalian checkpoint security, we should dismantle checkpoint security?

Oh, dear, what a mess.

@ Jeff Guinn, who wrote:

'No, you didn't. You implicitly agreed with Cousin Dave who said: . . . '

That is an implication that you drew, based on no data.

'I have been right about what I have been right all along: checkpoint security keeps bombs off airplanes.'

Another logical fallacy. It's the same logical fallacy that assumes that keeping an elephant gun loaded and ready is what keeps elephants from over-running my vegetable garden in Michigan.

The experience of the last several years shows that terrorists no longer attempt to attack airplanes via the passenger route. They don't have to. Their goal has been met - mindless, witless 'security' measures that waste the time of the population and squander the resources of governments have now been in place for 15 years, and thanks to standard Western government stasis, these measures will never go away. Job done. They have now turned to new routes of attack, to force new and greater responses which further degrade the economies of nations and the liberties of their peoples.

'When was the last successful bombing of a Western airliner?'

You don't get it - this is the wrong question. The right question would be 'when did terrorists last try bombing a Western airliner' and the answer is 'about a decade ago'. You're doing exactly what Western governments can't help themselves from doing - trying to find order and a pattern to respond to, then responding vigorously to that pattern. This suits the standard processes of government quite well, which is why they keep on doing it. Such a pity that the terrorists don't work that way.

Claiming that this is the result of checkpoint 'security' is, frankly, laughable, as multiple tests have shown that it is laughably-easy to get threats past TSA checkpoints. Your vague assertions about how you have 'read about' these tests, and claims that they do not emulate 'the real threat', do not impress me in the slightest. As it happens, I have read the Congressional testimony that followed the last testing fiasco. In any event, while you may claim that the tests do not emulate the 'real threat', the fact is that testers got real threats past the TSA checkpoint 'security' 19 times out of 20, and often after receiving secondary inspection, added pat-downs and the like. You do not get to redefine the reality of the tests after the fact - which is just what the TSA's John Pistole tried to do, the last time but two. Funnily-enough, he don't work there no more.

TSA shill. Place on 'ignore'.

llater,

llamas

Did the shoe and panty bombers use those means because it is easy to get bombs past checkpoints?

Are Islamists not bombing our airplanes because they think it would be too mean?

For you, effects without causes are mighty fine.

"I have been right about what I have been right all along: checkpoint security keeps bombs off airplanes."

No. You've actually been called on this many times, and not just by me.

You have a HUGE problem with the fundamental nature of "cause and effect".

There are actually TWO reasons in effect at all times that a bomb is not on an airplane. Read carefully:

1) No one tries to put a bomb on an airplane;
2) An attempt is thwarted.

TSA actions cannot account for the first BECAUSE the second has not been demonstrated.

I will now spell out the conditions which are evidence that #1 is in effect:
a) the TSA fails to detect contraband on a regular basis;
b) some TSA personnel have clearly demonstrated negligent and criminal behavior, thus harming rather than helping guarantee public safety;
c) a declared enemy of the USA has not bombed the much "softer" targets in the terminal and elsewhere.

"Achmed! They have a scanner! We must go home and throw our bombs away!"

I am not claiming to be a genius, although I might look like one by comparison here, I get that.

1) No one tries to put a bomb on an airplane;

Wrongo. It has happened twice -- remember the panty and shoe bombers?

The question you refuse to grasp is why Islamists are attacking far less lucrative targets than airliners.

Why is that?

You don't look like a genius, you sound exactly like a ranter.

Sooo, two attacks over the last 15 years and neither was thwarted by the TSA is your evidence the TSA is keeping bombs off planes?

"The question you refuse to grasp is why Islamists are attacking far less lucrative targets than airliners."

They are NOT attacking other targets in the United States with bombs, many of which are FAR more lucrative.

You have been shown this for years. Cognition, meet dissonance! Nothing about your assertions is logical.

How soon they forget...

We're talking about trusting the likes of Thedala Magee.

Nope. Nopity, nope, nope.