Been on a plane recently?

[Hew]

Unless you have the resources and time to screen EVERYONE, you must only screen a sample. The trick is to avoid sampling error, and check in a way that will maximize the efficiency of only partial screening. This means that more brown people will be pulled out of line, which is something that at least one muslim leader said he is willing to do. I was pulled out of a boarding line in my class A army uniform and patted down, and I'm as cracker as you can get, so I understand the frustration.

This isn't a high school statistics problem about determining sample size. That's the poltically correct absudity that causes middle aged, fishbelly-white US Army officers to get pulled out of line for pat downs. I don't think many Americans want to see more "brown people" pulled out of line. They want to see more people pulled out of line who fit the profile of an airplane terrorist. At the moment, those people are young Muslim men; be they Arabic, black, white or polkadotted.

[dnf777]

As much as it may hurt, why don't we agree to agree on that last one?

[Evan]

I don't think you really want to compare the scorecard of worldwide muslim terrorists to US rightwing extremists.

But Hew, have you noticed how true it continues to be that "Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." (Simon & Garfunkel)

If the objective of this thread were to miss significant points, we would need Olympic judges to keep score. By whom should American citizens feel more threatened:

1. Sexually deviant individual Republican politicians?
2. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

How hard is that to focus on? I suppose it's measured by one's devotion to a political agenda or ideology.

I'm flying to Canada to give a seminar the end of March. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for sexually deviant Republicans. They're everywhere, you know.

Evan

[YardleyLabs]

I don't think you really want to compare the scorecard of worldwide muslim terrorists to US rightwing extremists.

Actually, if we're talking about policies in the US, we are basically talking about domestic terrorism. I we are limiting ourselves to passenger initiated efforts to blow up planes in the US, what is the total number of incidents involved in the last decade relative to the total number of flights? The reality is that almost all screening efforts involve harassing innocent people. The incidence of terrorists in any group is microscopic. Given that, certain things are clear, at least to me:

• We are dealing with an intelligent enemy with the resources to plan and execute operations almost anywhere in the world and capable of recruiting volunteer "triggers" of any nationality, gender, or age. While Arab men are the resource most readily available, that is not a serious limit on capability.
• Whatever screening methods are used, wannabe terrorists will have ample opportunity to study the methods and test different approaches for circumventing them.
• The primary value of incidents results from the level of disruption caused by efforts to prevent success and from the level of fear engendered. A "failure" works as well as a "success".

• Profiling based on indeterminate characteristics (color, religion, apparent national origin) will have no significant impact on success both because they are statistically irrelevant as indicators of a propensity to terrorism. However, such activity is bound to result victimization of the targeted groups, creating more propaganda opportunities for terrorist organizations and their supporters.
• Behavioral profiling is much more complex, much harder and more expensive to implement. However, it is also more likely to yield results.
• Technological approaches for identifying potential weapons offer many opportunities for improvement and corporate profit. They will also continue to generate massive numbers of false positives until we finally reach the stage of shipping luggage separately from people and issuing special, disposable travel outfits to each passenger as an alternative to flying naked. While technological approaches have provided and will continue to provide many real benefits, they will ultimately provide no more of a "guarantee" than we have now. We will increase usage every time there is an incident, regardless of merit, and it is always worth tracking the stock of players in this market.

Whatever is done, those is charge will have ample opportunity to declare victory before the next incident.

However, I suspect that the real pattern of terrorist attacks will migrate more toward the use of IED's in the US and other areas outside of the actual battlefield countries. Real progress seems to have been made in improving the reliability of such devices and dissemination of the technologies appears to have become more common.

[YardleyLabs]

...

1. Sexually deviant individual Republican politicians?
2. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40?

...

I'm flying to Canada to give a seminar the end of March. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for sexually deviant Republicans. They're everywhere, you know.

Evan

Good idea Evan. I think you are much more likely to encounter a sexually deviant Republican (or Democrat) than you are to encounter a suicide bomber of any persuasion.

[dnf777]

I'm flying to Canada to give a seminar the end of March. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for sexually deviant Republicans.
Evan

Watch out for the men's room in Minnesota! If that stall's a rockin, don't come a knockin!

[road kill]

Good idea Evan. I think you are much more likely to encounter a sexually deviant Republican (or Democrat) than you are to encounter a suicide bomber of any persuasion.

On an airplane???

Swing and a miss..........the topic is airplane security!!


BTW....DNF, nice try, but swing and a miss for you as well, I checked, that was not the only murder in Seneca PA, and there is no comment on "camo."
Me thinks you trumped up the story to back up an assertion that has no relevance to airplane security.



rk

[dnf777]

On an airplane???

Swing and a miss..........the topic is airplane security!!


BTW....DNF, nice try, but swing and a miss for you as well, I checked, that was not the only murder in SenecaPA, and there is no comment on "camo."
Me thinks you trumped up the story to back up an assertion that has norelevance to airplane security.



rk

The guy was a patient of my wife's. The other murder was a wife and mother-in-law. And BTW, EVERYONE here has camo! The murderer's Marlin was returned to him by a judge who said he could use it only for hunting, after having brandished it at his wife's workplace several years ago, and having it confiscated. This guy had a history of armed violence, substance abuse, and alcoholism. If there is anyone who should have their guns taken away, he was the poster child.

So yes, in Venango county, Pa, your chances of being killed by a beer-drinkin middle-aged white male with a deer rifle are VASTLY greater than being blown up by a muslim terrorist! It's not rocket science. And yes, if a young mulsim showed up carrying a duffle-bag, you can BET he will be scrutinized and questioned, if not by authorities, by a bunch of beer-drinkin, middle-aged white men with deer rifles!

http://www.city-data.com/city/Frankl...nsylvania.html

You can see the city-data shows 2 murders as far back as they report. If you want to go back to the days of John Wilkes Boothe and the underground railroad, yes, there have probably been more. Maybe you were looking at the murder rate per 100,000, which is much greater because we don't have 100,000 people here.

[Hew]

Actually, if we're talking about policies in the US, we are basically talking about domestic terrorism. I we are limiting ourselves to passenger initiated efforts to blow up planes in the US, what is the total number of incidents involved in the last decade relative to the total number of flights? Using that logic nuclear weapons are not a potential problem if we compare the total number of nukes detonated in anger to the number of total nukes. The fact that terrorist events and nuclear explosions don't happen often doesn't negate the consequences of when they do occur. The reality is that almost all screening efforts involve harassing innocent people. The incidence of terrorists in any group is microscopic. Given that, certain things are clear, at least to me:

• We are dealing with an intelligent enemy with the resources to plan and execute operations almost anywhere in the world and capable of recruiting volunteer "triggers" of any nationality, gender, or age. While Arab men are the resource most readily available, that is not a serious limit on capability.
• Whatever screening methods are used, wannabe terrorists will have ample opportunity to study the methods and test different approaches for circumventing them. That's undeniable. However, there are two common threads...1) No matter their successes and failures, they keep trying to use airliners, and most importantly 2) they're young MUSLIM men. So you're right that they will always be somewhat ahead of us in their methods (box cutters begets shoe bombs begets panty bombs), but the three constants are their age, their penises and their religion.
• The primary value of incidents results from the level of disruption caused by efforts to prevent success and from the level of fear engendered. A "failure" works as well as a "success".

• Profiling based on indeterminate characteristics (color, religion, apparent national origin) will have no significant impact on success both because they are statistically irrelevant as indicators of a propensity to terrorism. However, such activity is bound to result victimization of the targeted groups, creating more propaganda opportunities for terrorist organizations and their supporters. Yeah, yeah. You said that about Gitmo. We're closing Gitmo and they're still trying to kill us.
• Behavioral profiling is much more complex, much harder and more expensive to implement. However, it is also more likely to yield results. So are magic wands and white wizards. We can hardly train competent TSA employees to find a lit stick of dynamite...training them to look for beady eyes and sweaty brows might be a little tough. I posit that it ain't rocket science to look at a passenger's ticket and see Muqtab al-Hussein, see that he's about 22, and say, "Mr. al-Hussein, I apologize for the delay, but would you mind stepping over here for a moment? Thanks."
• Technological approaches for identifying potential weapons offer many opportunities for improvement and corporate profit. They will also continue to generate massive numbers of false positives until we finally reach the stage of shipping luggage separately from people and issuing special, disposable travel outfits to each passenger as an alternative to flying naked. While technological approaches have provided and will continue to provide many real benefits, they will ultimately provide no more of a "guarantee" than we have now. We will increase usage every time there is an incident, regardless of merit, and it is always worth tracking the stock of players in this market. Following the money is never a bad idea.

Whatever is done, those is charge will have ample opportunity to declare victory before the next incident.

However, I suspect that the real pattern of terrorist attacks will migrate more toward the use of IED's in the US and other areas outside of the actual battlefield countries. Real progress seems to have been made in improving the reliability of such devices and dissemination of the technologies appears to have become more common.

................

[huntinman]

Actually, if we're talking about policies in the US, we are basically talking about domestic terrorism. I we are limiting ourselves to passenger initiated efforts to blow up planes in the US, what is the total number of incidents involved in the last decade relative to the total number of flights? The reality is that almost all screening efforts involve harassing innocent people. The incidence of terrorists in any group is microscopic. Given that, certain things are clear, at least to me:

• We are dealing with an intelligent enemy with the resources to plan and execute operations almost anywhere in the world and capable of recruiting volunteer "triggers" of any nationality, gender, or age. While Arab men are the resource most readily available, that is not a serious limit on capability.
• Whatever screening methods are used, wannabe terrorists will have ample opportunity to study the methods and test different approaches for circumventing them.
• The primary value of incidents results from the level of disruption caused by efforts to prevent success and from the level of fear engendered. A "failure" works as well as a "success".

• Profiling based on indeterminate characteristics (color, religion, apparent national origin) will have no significant impact on success both because they are statistically irrelevant as indicators of a propensity to terrorism. However, such activity is bound to result victimization of the targeted groups, creating more propaganda opportunities for terrorist organizations and their supporters.
• Behavioral profiling is much more complex, much harder and more expensive to implement. However, it is also more likely to yield results.
• Technological approaches for identifying potential weapons offer many opportunities for improvement and corporate profit. They will also continue to generate massive numbers of false positives until we finally reach the stage of shipping luggage separately from people and issuing special, disposable travel outfits to each passenger as an alternative to flying naked. While technological approaches have provided and will continue to provide many real benefits, they will ultimately provide no more of a "guarantee" than we have now. We will increase usage every time there is an incident, regardless of merit, and it is always worth tracking the stock of players in this market.

Whatever is done, those is charge will have ample opportunity to declare victory before the next incident.

However, I suspect that the real pattern of terrorist attacks will migrate more toward the use of IED's in the US and other areas outside of the actual battlefield countries. Real progress seems to have been made in improving the reliability of such devices and dissemination of the technologies appears to have become more common.

Sometimes less is more. You say a whole lot, but none of it makes any sense.