×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Tries To Use Explosive Device On US Flight

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the bad-at-terrorism dept.

Transportation 809

reporter writes with news that a Nigerian man allegedly attempted to set off a small explosive device — possibly a firecracker — on a Delta Airbus 330 airliner bound for Detroit yesterday. "There was a pop and then smoke wafted through the cabin. A passenger then climbed over several seats, lunged across the aisle and managed to subdue the suspect, the eyewitnesses said. The Nigerian man was placed in a headlock before being dragged up to the first class cabin. Passenger Zeina Seagal told CNN that after the suspect was collared and parts of his burning pants were removed, flight attendants quickly grabbed fire extinguishers and doused the fire at his seat." The man has claimed links to al-Qaeda, though the investigation hasn't confirmed that yet. (They're not taking anything for granted given that his pants were literally on fire.)

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

809 comments

Result (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555640)

The new rules are hilarious however:

- Not allowed to have any items or anything on your lap for the last 1 hour of flight
- Not allowed to go to toilet during that time either
- Crew doesn't tell about cities or landmarks so passengers don't know where they are flying (it's so hard to time that on clock)

What is that going to improve?

Re:Result (5, Insightful)

areusche (1297613) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555646)

Just wait when they ban laptops because of explosive batteries! Terrorism on a plane is just pointless for this reason alone. The passengers will fight the fool to his death.

Re:Result (0, Troll)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555982)

I don't believe this terrorism BS. It was supposedly a man who was on the USA most wanted list. In the USA airplanes flights are almost waterproof and there were no alarms sound.

Either the US National Security Agency is a complete joke, which could be the case, or this whole thing stinks.

Re:Result (3, Funny)

gclef (96311) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555660)

You missed the most likely new rule:

- Not allowed to wear pants.

Re:Result (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555678)

It most likely gets to that point too - everyone will just sit naked and doing nothing for the whole flight. If your eyes move, you will be shot.

However, those rules actually are real, they were sent to airlines this morning. They are also requiring double security checks at airports - one when you go to terminal area, and one at the port. Again, shouldn't you get caught in the first check?

Re:Result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555722)

However, those rules actually are real, they were sent to airlines this morning.

Link or it didn't happen. Searching Google News turns up absolutely nothing of the sort.

Re:Result (3, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555784)

Here [montrealgazette.com] is canadian newspaper stating them at least (I read earlier from local newspaper in my language)

Re:Result (4, Funny)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555762)

That will last exactly as long as it takes for me to take a flight.

"You want me to sit naked? OK." *strips*

TSA guy: "NO! PLEASE NO! PLEASE PUT YOUR CLOTHES BACK ON! *OH GOD MY EYES* "

--
BMO

Re:Result (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30556000)

That will last exactly as long as it takes for me to take a flight.

"You want me to sit naked? OK." *strips*

TSA guy: "NO! PLEASE NO! PLEASE PUT YOUR CLOTHES BACK ON! *OH GOD MY EYES* "

-- BMO

Especially in America, where the average person has a tremendous layer of blubber. Big disgusting rolls of fat with cellulite and blubber upon blubber composing their distorted figures that once looked humanoid. Yeah. Like those fat chicks where you can't tell where their droopy tits end and their gut begins cuz their gut overhangs itself. If they are naked their gut is like a skirt made of flesh, hanging down low enough to completely cover their cunt and unfortunately their ass is bigger and more visible than ever. Does this sound like what you want to see naked? If we gotta see that naked all the time on every flight, maybe the terrorists will feel sorry for us.

Re:Result (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555706)

sopssa (1498795) wrote:

Crew doesn't tell about cities or landmarks [for the last 1 hour of flight]

Which is really retarded, since any of those "hijack a plane and plunge it into a building" attacks are going to happen in the first hour when the plane's full of fuel. Kneejerk facists would be a real worry if they weren't all so hilariously incompetent.

Re:Result (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555728)

This seems to be a looping problem. All the government can think about is the last attempt, only backwards. There has been lots of dedication into flights after 9/11, while leaving all the other security problems open. Now its the same thing. This single thing happened on the last hour of flight, so they're thinking it's always going to happen on last hour of flight now.

And you are perfectly correct, even 9/11 happened in first minutes of flights, since they were flights leaving from US.

Don't solve the problem by looking backwards and making stupid rules to counter those; solve the whole problem and look why it is happening.

Re:Result (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555742)

And 9/11 won't happen again because this time the passengers won't let it. As soon as people learned the rules had changed, that the hijackers were going to kill them and not just hold them hostage till they reach their destination, their tactics became ineffective. People know that do nothing means death, but doing something may have give them a chance at life.

Re:Result (3, Insightful)

user32.ExitWindowsEx (250475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555934)

Exactly. We don't need ANY airport security anymore. Just laws granting civil and criminal immunity to passengers and crew defending themselves on flights. The people onboard can and will protect themselves.

Re:Result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30556006)

That doesn't make any sense; people can't reasonably defend themselves against the two guys with MAC10s. Box cutters or knives - sure. But you still can't let people on with guns, bombs, grenades, etc. or the game is still up.

Re:Result (3, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555716)

Do you have a source for that?

Security is getting so ridiculous that I'm forced to wonder how long it will be until these people decide to ban passengers. No passengers -> no terrorists -> no victims.

Re:Result (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555760)

I found this [montrealgazette.com] for Canada, it seems to have the same rules stated too.

Re:Result (5, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555808)

Amazing. Given US's kneejerk reactions to these kinds of events, is it at all surprising that more and more people are refusing to visit the United States for anything other than business purposes? These idiots either don't realize or don't care that overreaction does have its price.

Re:Result (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555906)

I'm learning to fly right now (my FAA practical test is on Tuesday), and despite the cost of flying myself most places, it's starting to look like a better and better idea.

A friend is flying home on Southwest to Dallas tonight. I'll be asking her what she experienced on the flight.

Re:Result (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556004)

meh, i suspect one will be handled like baggage. that is, stripped named, given a overall, put into a coffin-like container, and then stacked into the aircraft.

Re:Result (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556020)

That would also reduce the number of lawsuits when something goes wrong with the plane -- like that one that slid off the runway a few days ago. I bet that generated like 100 lawsuits, costing the airline millions in settlements. If there were no passengers, there'd be no lawsuits. Perhaps someone in the industry should look into implementing your advice.

I wonder how many people are not flying at all now, not because of the chances of an act of terrorism taking place on a plane but because of how unpleasant the airlines and dealing with the TSA have become. Since 9/11 passengers realize that they had better fight (And have actually killed) terrorists when they try to do something on a plane. Terrorists won't destroy the airline industry, the airline industry will. I'd much rather deal with some jackass claiming to be in Al Quieda than one snotty airline attendant with too much authority and too little sense. Nope, I'll drive or take the train whenever possible.

Re:Result (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555836)

The security theater?

Seriously, the security has been pretty damn good since 9/11 for one reason alone, the passengers won't let you take over anymore. Before it'd be ransom or release of prisoners or whatever, sit tight and you'd probably survive. Now you have to literally make the plane unable to fly yourself, and firecrackers are damn far from doing it. Anything burning will cause a panic inside the cabin but nothing like the structural damage required to bring the plane down. For that you need explosives, probably a shaped charge at some critical point too as an open charge is surprisingly ineffective compared to the alternative.

Re:Result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555876)

You jest, but they have to do something, so more security theater is a certainty. I had considered traveling to the US in January, you know, with the dollar so low and all, but then I learned that the US spends more on "defense" than all of the states' taxes combined. [pubrecord.org] I guess the weak dollar is not going anywhere soon, so there's no hurry and I can let the current panic wave subside.

Long Distance Rail (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555924)

Why would I want to keep flying?

I get an Amtrak sleeper car. For only a little more than a cattle-class cross-country air ticket, I can spend few days in a moving hotel room (with shower!), and see some of the most gorgeous terrain [about.com] in the entire nation. Plus, with cell phone tethering, I can actually get work done on the train. Plus, there's actual sit-down dining available.

And hell, the coach seats are more spacious than first class ones aboard all but the mightiest aircraft.

Sure, rail travel takes longer than flying, but is that such a problem when planning ahead, and when actually being on the train isn't so bad? Besides: with any luck, we'll have more high-speed rail in the future.

Re:Long Distance Rail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555996)

I don't want to spend a few days traveling.

I'm going to see some family from the 31st to the 3rd in Cali (i'm from Indiana). I would rather spend the time with them than looking out the window.

Re:Result (2, Insightful)

Forge (2456) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555948)

All that harassment of decent passengers and once again the true "weapon against hijacking" saves the day. I.e. People don't like to blow up so they will beet the crap out of anyone who tries. If you aim to blow up a plane it had better freaking explode before anyone sees you doing anything suspicious.

Searching for bombs, detaining luggage, banning liquids etc... helps nobody. Hijack and bombing attempts fail when another passenger beets the crap out of you.

Re:Result (2, Funny)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556032)

People don't like to blow up so they will beet the crap out of anyone who tries

Come on, even terrorists don't deserve that kind of treatment [wikipedia.org]

Re:Result (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555958)

More room on your flight as more people just say 'forget it' and drive for their next family trip?

Of course then they will enact mandatory searches of our cars....

Probable Translation (4, Insightful)

Simulant (528590) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555662)

    Crazy loner sets off home made firecracker on plane and lights pants on fire.

Re:Probable Translation (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555724)

according to Danish newspaper BT.dk he tried to mix a bag of powder with some liquid chemicals he had in a syringe

Re:Probable Translation (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555826)

That was how the first reports were like. That it has no Al'Kaeda connection, and that he just claimed that.

Now the White House confirmed that it was a terror incident, but I'm not sure what new evidence they base that on.

Re:Probable Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555976)

Probably that he tried to blow the plane up and claimed to be a terrorist? I am just guessing though.

Wonderful (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555670)

Oh, this is wonderful. Now we will probably be strip searched and forced to wear airline clothing. Why not just reconfigure planes to be more like cargo vehicles and put all passengers into a coma and pack and transport them like packages? :(

Re:Wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555914)

Forced to wear airline clothing, you say? That'd be perfect. Wait until they start having to deal with wet pants.

Re:Wonderful (1)

Byzantine (85549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556026)

Well, considering that probably the easiest way to transport an unconscious human is on their back—at least we'd get to stretch out our legs! (I'm only 5'8", and I find airplane coach seats cramped.)

Our service today... (4, Funny)

DieByWire (744043) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555680)

Our service today includes a light snack, complimentary beverages and a weenie roast in coach class.

"possibly a firecracker" (4, Interesting)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555682)

It did not sound like a firecracker in the latest reports I have been hearing on the radio. Latest: it was a powder, plus a liquid from a syringe. My blogger buddy remembered something I forgot, there is a way to ignite thermite with a liquid (potassium permanganate and glycerol? sorry for forgetting), but no idea what this was yet.

First class... (2)

volfreak (555528) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555686)

Wow! And all these years, I've not had the thousands US$ to pay to upgrade to first class and all it took was a dadgum 4th of July firecracker!!

It used to be... (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555694)

... that the plane landed in Havana, the hijacker got off the plane, and everyone went around their business or it landed in Tel-Aviv, the plane on the ground, and the hijackers shot/arrested with one or two dead passengers that the hijackers had killed to show they were "serious". The passengers sat in their seats and waited it out.

Those were the days when hijackers could depend on the passivity of passengers.

With planes being flown into buildings, passengers are no longer passive. It's not the TSA that keeps planes safe, it's the passengers and crew that will beat the snot out of the latest Al-Q "martyr."

--
BMO

Re:It used to be... (2, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555792)

There is still a valid purpose in watching for bombs, and has been for decades. The most courageous passengers will do no good if someone manages to set off a usable explosive and blow a hole in the side of the plane.

Re:It used to be... (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555810)

Shit yea.

"You wanna go see Allah? Here, let me give you a fist." *whap* *whap* *whap*

[John]

Re:It used to be... (1, Insightful)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556002)

Those were the days when passengers could depend on their captors not being suicidal.

Why did he not succeed ? (1, Interesting)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555698)

If this was really an al-Qaeda plot - then why did he not succeed in crashing the airplane ? Are you really trying to convince me that they are a bunch of incompetents who just manage to cause a little damage but that is all ?

These guys are not stupid, if they wanted to do it they would succeed. I suspect that the bloke is a lone nutter who wanted to draw attention to himself or had some grudge or something. He may even have sympathised with al-Qaeda - but that does not make it an al-Qaeda plot.

However the result of this is that the various security agencies around the world will use this as as excuse to increase the boarding checks resulting in more pain to us and their continued employment.

Re:Why did he not succeed ? (2, Insightful)

tentimestwenty (693290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555732)

Or, it's some basic cultural misunderstanding where he thought it was appropriate to celebrate with firecrackers on Xmas. If this the biggest terrorist threat of the year then America can sleep soundly.

Re:Why did he not succeed ? (3, Insightful)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555814)

Have you noticed a pattern to most Terrorism attempts? They tend to fail.

The plot that hit the USS Cole started with a boat so loaded with explosives that it sank before it reached an American warship.

Re:Why did he not succeed ? (5, Interesting)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555884)

seriously? just because it wasn't successful by your standards you are ruling out Al-Qaeda? they are not perfect. they fail just like everyone else. they do however learn very fast from their mistakes and try again. there is no reason to believe this wasn't them just because it wasn't successful in bringing down the plane. it was successful in showing them how to get certain components onboard. it was successful in showing how to assemble them onboard. it was successful in showing how we react to their new plan. i'm sure it was successful in accomplishing any number of their objectives. sometimes they just send people out to test reactions and responses to attempted attacks. not all actions are full on real attacks, sometimes they are just testing our lines.

i'm not saying that is was for sure Al-Qaeda, but i'm not stupid enough to rule them out just because it didn't fit my idea of what a successful Al-Qaeda attack should be. they only have to be successful in bringing down the plane once, we have to be successful in stopping them every time.

what has me is how this guy was allowed to land ALIVE. i for one will not take prisoners when somebody trys to blow me up in the sky.

Re:Why did he not succeed ? (4, Informative)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555900)

The perpetrator is claiming he received the explosives from Al-Qaeda in Jemen. He did visit Jemen before boarding this flight, so that is quite likely the source.

Also, it was a binary explosive: he was trying to inject liquid chemicals into solid chemicals strapped to his legs. They exploded mildly, but mostly set him on fire - that was were the bang and fire came from. Right then a Dutch passenger jumped over a few chairs and subdued him. Although I've read reports that the terrorist was "sitting dazed in his chair" - he'd probably expected to die right there, and when he didn't he was in shock.

Binary explosives are a bit hard to mix and if you don't get it right, you don't get a big bang. Also, it looks like there was no containing vessel so the bang could have been like gunpowder in the open: a big flash but apart from that, nothing much.

I'm wondering that kind of chemicals they were using though, because he was checked by security and nothing showed up on the scanners. He probably had the nitrogen-rich stuff strapped to his legs and harmless-looking stuff in his handluggage.

Re:Why did he not succeed ? (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556046)

Yeah, you've got a point. From TFA:

> claimed to have extremist ties and said the explosive device "was acquired in Yemen along with instructions as to when it should be used," ... but that, along with the "firecracker" comment, made me wonder: Who says there are only terrorists in Jemen? Who says there aren't also extremely mean pranksters?

Re:Why did he not succeed ? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555954)

If this was really an al-Qaeda plot - then why did he not succeed in crashing the airplane ? Are you really trying to convince me that they are a bunch of incompetents who just manage to cause a little damage but that is all?

Yeah, imagine that, Al-Qaeda is really just the mouse that made the elephant dance in fright because it got lucky once.
After all, Richard Reid was incompetent too.

Re:Why did he not succeed ? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556008)

If this was really an al-Qaeda plot - then why did he not succeed in crashing the airplane ?

He made a bad roll against his DEX.

Re:Why did he not succeed ? (2)

calixaren (1116263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556030)

Have you forgotten the second wave of London bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_July_2005_London_bombings)? These guys were really bunch of stupid incompetents.

Should read (-1, Troll)

amightywind (691887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555700)

Should read, "another muslim terror clown ignites himself in attempt to bomb airplane." Why isn't the TSA strip searching muslim males coming into the US?

BRILLIANT SUGGESTION! (4, Interesting)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555752)

What better way to weed out possible terrorist than strip searching everyone who does not prominently display a $0.10 pewter cross.
BRILLIANT!

I don't suppose you actually work for the TSA? Sounds like you were born for that career.

Re:Should read (1, Flamebait)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555756)

I also think all American's (from the US) should be strip searched and left to wander around the Scandinavian winter cold a few hours just to make sure they didn't bring any Big Macs with them.

Fair is fair, no?

Re:Should read (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555918)

... just to make sure they didn't bring any Big Macs with them.

Why worry about bringing Big Macs in when they are so readily available there?

Yes, it's fun to make fun of fat Americans and their fast food, but consider that you wouldn't find so many McDonalds (or any other American chains) if it weren't economically viable - meaning consumers actually want it.

And I've said this before - there are plenty of fatties waddling around Europe these days too. It's no longer and American phenomenon.

Re:Should read (5, Funny)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555790)

Mandatory bacon sandwiches before boarding the plane. Everybody wins.

Re:Should read (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555860)

If it works, why not? Are you going to claim some kind of Bacon allergy?

Surely people on Slashdot won't dismiss a functional idea because it makes you laugh?

Re:Should read (2, Informative)

nulldaemon (926551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555950)

If it works, why not? Are you going to claim some kind of Bacon allergy?

Surely people on Slashdot won't dismiss a functional idea because it makes you laugh?

No, people are dismissing that "functional idea" because it's born out of the most disgusting type of xenophobia.

Re:Should read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30556038)

Lighten up, Francis.

Re:Should read (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555868)

Suicide bombers believe that all sins of martyrs will be forgiven. They can do pretty much what they want before carrying out the act.

Re:Should read (4, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555908)

So every muslim that still wants to fly the plane is a terrorist. You're not thinking this through ;)

Re:Should read (2, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555878)

Mandatory bacon sandwiches before boarding the plane. Everybody wins.

Accompanied by a snifter of fine cognac. Or at least a shot of cheap vodka. No swallow - no fly.
Damn, I'd even pay a couple of bucks for that kind of security...

Re:Should read (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555794)

Why isn't the TSA strip searching Muslim males? That's easy:
1. They couldn't identify which men are Muslim or not. It's not like there's a big sign written on each Muslim saying "I am a Muslim" (and if there were, a reasonably smart terrorist wouldn't wear it when they went to bomb a plane).

2. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, Islam included. Treating members of a particular faith as second-class citizens would definitely violate that. And yes, there are Muslims citizens of the US, some of them currently serving the country in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are more loyal to the US and what it stands for than you are.

3. At least 99.9% of Muslim men aren't terrorists. You're arguing for strip searching about 800 million people in order to find a few thousand people. Your odds are only slightly better than strip searching the 99.99% of Christian men who aren't terrorists to find the 0.01% who are (e.g. Tim McVeigh or members of the Real IRA).

Re:Should read (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555848)

>2. The First Amendment of the Constitution [...]Treating members of a particular faith as second-class citizens would definitely violate that

Right. So we treat EVERYONE like second-class citizens so it is fair.

Not that I disagree with you, I am just pissed about the whole plane security thing. Typical reaction? They will spent hundreds of million dollars to perform background checks on passengers to see if they have ever attended a fireworks show. Passengers wearing clothing depicting fireworks or who have laptops with a fireworks screen saver will be banned. If the "firecracker terrorist" wore an earring, earrings will be banned from planes. You get the idea- a bunch of pretty meaningless steps to further ruin air travel, delay passengers, violate privacy, push prices up, all so people will feel "safe" again.

Re:Should read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30556036)

Actually, you wouldn't have to strip search 800 million. Most of them can't afford to fly because almost all Muslim-majority countries are fairly poor (Especially by Western Standards) and couldn't afford to fly.

Re:Should read (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555802)

Should read, "another muslim terror clown ignites himself in attempt to bomb airplane." Why isn't the TSA strip searching muslim males coming into the US?

Because that would violate the human rights twice. Terrorists and suspected Terrorists are humans.

Re:Should read (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555952)

Yeah, and instead we violate human rights for everyone so therefore its fair right? All the while, most generic white people don't bring down airplanes. Really, this is akin to having a virus that runs on Windows and searching every single computer running OS X or Linux in an attempt to find it.

Re:Should read (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556014)

If you search based on ethnicity, they'll just recruit people like John Walker Lindh. Our enemies are perfectly capable of thought.

Also, look up the number of dangerous actions by non-Muslims.

Just tell me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555704)

Just tell me that this guy did not carry the explosives inside his anus. Imagine TSA inspectors and their updated security guidelines.

(Too early?)

The message is clear (5, Funny)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555714)

The message is clear: Don't fuck with people flying in to Detroit. We have very little to lose. I can see that scenario playing out now:

"I will blow up the plane!"

"Jackass, I'm *willingly* leaving a place with universal health care, low crime, and pot on every street corner to go *home* to a city with crushing illiteracy, high crime, and an epic unemployment level. Do you think I really give a flying fuck about dying?"

I just wonder how many people were uncomfortable with the extra federal attention the flight got when it landed =)

Re:The message is clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555932)

Are you suggesting that the smoke wasn't the result of the bomb?

Re:The message is clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555978)

Agreed. Messing with Detroiters? This guy is lucky that some of his body parts are not following him in a bag.

URGNET HELP NEEDED PLS (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555720)

From the desk of Barrister Kofi Kukukuku,
Ministry of Finance,
Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Dear ,

I hope this message finds you well. I am in urgent need of a representative in you country
to assist with the transfer of $10 USD Million for legal assistance. The son of the deposed
dictator Silas Kofi Abdulmutallab who was assassinated in a violent coup in 2007. Is accused
of attempted bombing of a commercial flight from Amsterdam and is being held Ilegally by the
United States., who is demanding immediate bribe of $4 USD million for his release.. For your kind
assistance in this matter we are prepared to pay $5 USD million for simple transfer to an account
in your country, to prevent further taxation by corrupt officials. To assent, simply reply soonest
with the following information:

Your bank account number;
your address and phone numer;
your national idenification number for security pruposes.

I look forward to your kind assistance.

Sincerely,

Barrister Kofi Kukukuku

And there was a great big fizzling sound (3, Informative)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555770)

And there was a great big fizzing sound as his device failed to accomplish it's task with was either a detonation or an incendiary intended to burn the plane out of the sky.

Since it was in his, ahem, pants or pocket he burned himself where it hurts effectively removing himself from the gene pool either by a lifetime of incarceration or more directly by incineration.

You'd like to think, ouch that's gotta hurt but then who has sympathy for someone attempting to kill other people with explosives or flames?

In a way you want the lone wolf jihadies to come out of the woodwork and fail since they illuminate their otherwise low key network connections. It's sorta like a flash light in the darkness of terror plots by individuals or states.

All one big misunderstanding... (0, Redundant)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555780)

As far as I've heard, the so-called terrorist was just the son of the king of Nigeria, who was -finally- able to flee the country, after he succeeded to get all his money transferred to foreign banks by sending out those emails the past few years.

I assume the fireworks was just to celebrate his escape... I hope he's also going to finally pay my interest he promised, when I helped transfer those 100.000 dollars.

informative Mar"emare (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555804)

escape them by other membeArs in You join today! reasons why anyone R3cent article put Baby take my this exploitation, Has run faster

I'm just waiting... (1)

theskunkmonkey (839144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555818)

Wait until a bomber is caught with a bomb up his ass.

You thought airport screening was bad before?

"Drop your pants and bend over!"
"Cough please!"

Fireworks? (1)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555824)

Earlier the article in the (UK) Daily Telegraph had a headline about his having let of a firework. This contrasted with CNN quoting some US senator saying it was a 'quite sophisticated explosive device'. The more I hear 'pop and fizz' the more credit I give The Telegraph for being on the money... except that they seem to have retracted it now (?)

They Were Right - I Was Wrong (1)

DeanFox (729620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555842)

... allegedly attempted to set off a small explosive device --

My family and I are at odds. My favorite story is watching a grandmother get shaken down at the airport. Knitting needles handled like they were weapons, the hand-held scanner sounding like a horse cat in heat scowling at her huge coat buttons and costume jewelry. I was appalled.

I can hear my family now. I was wrong. AN EXPLOSIVE DEVICE son, - a bomb! I can also already hear myself - ...But it was a firecracker, you know a firecracker? That even if you hold on to it, it only hurts the one holding it? You know... TNT measured in micro-grams?

But my best arguments weren't enough before this incident, they certainly won't be enough now. They'll probably be demanding all civil rights now be suspended "for our safety". ...I can't even imagine what Faux News is doing with this one. They must be have a hayday.

It was a friggin firecracker for Christ's sake.

-[d]-

Re:They Were Right - I Was Wrong (1)

St.Creed (853824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555926)

It wasn't a firecracker, but according to the current reports it was a failed mixture of chemicals that didn't explode as well as the terrorists had hoped - that's what you get for just injecting chemicals instead of properly mixing them.

Re:They Were Right - I Was Wrong (1)

DeanFox (729620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555984)


Yep, you are right; I am wrong. I guess thats what they get for ignoring the "Made in China" label of quality.

See? We don't need "security theater" anymore! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30555890)

Just like I told people I was with on that awful Tuesday morning almost nine years ago while we sat staring at CNN, "The era of 'be cool and obey the hijackers and everything will be fine' is now over."

I was proven right not long after when the Muslim Kramer tried to light up his shoes and got his ass kicked by the passengers.
I was proven right nearly every time a passenger acts up on a plane anymore-- if it makes the news, you almost always hear that other passengers helped subdue him.
I was proven right again yesterday.

We don't need a great deal of that TSA bullshit anymore, because the passengers are on the case now. Unless someone can get enough stuff on board to instantaneously destroy the plane, the passengers are gonna react and be tripping over each other to fuck him up. And the TSA bullshit that remains should just be focused on the passengers that fit the terrorist profile, and the hell with this political correctness nonsense.

I want to walk through security without taking my shoes off, and I want to bring a goddamn bottle of Pepsi onto the plane without having to pay 4 bucks for it after I pass security.

Re:See? We don't need "security theater" anymore! (1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555988)

Exactly. Generally people know who are going to be the "terrorists" and who are the average Joes. Its pretty obvious that the person who is Muslim is going to be more apt to blow up a plane where a generic white guy drinking a coke isn't going to want to. Yeah, we can be fooled, but on just about every plot this has held true.

Fucking douchebag (4, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555936)

Expect the Authorities to milk this event for what it's worth when it comes to justifying mandatory pre-flight anal probing sessions, more mass surveillance and the outlawing of encryption they're not sure how to crack.

Synthetic Terror (1)

Cinnaman (954100) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555986)

Yes, things like this need to be staged to remind us that our rights need to be suspended to keep us safe. The audio-only Bin Laden tape from this year was laughable.

Gives a new Definition to Flaiming Queen (1)

DeanFox (729620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555960)


The "hero" pulled a flaming object from his pants and tossed it asside...
The passenger identified as Nigerian named Abdul Mudallad - now known as Mrs. Mudallad...

Yet Another Exploding iPhone. (3, Funny)

Muskstick (1522069) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555964)

I thought Apple had fixed this problem?

Bet this guy wishes he'd bought an Android.

Not news for nerds. (0, Offtopic)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30555968)

How is this news appropriate for Slashdot? This has nothing to do with technology or news for nerds. There are plenty of regular news outlets for news like this.

no wonder it was foiled.... (1)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556016)

If having a passenger with the last name "Seagal" on your plane doesn't foil something of a terrorist-type attack like this... then what will? Steven Seagal [wikipedia.org] has been busting up terrorist plots left and right with little effort all throughout the late 80's and 90's.

This attack was perfectly succesful (5, Insightful)

InsurgentGeek (926646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30556042)

It's important to remember that the goal here is not to bring down planes or buildings - it's to create turmoil and terror. Simple actions like this cause millions to billions of dollars of cost to our economy for the investment of a can of lighter fluid and a firecracker. Because of one case of semi-successful action by one clown millions of us will now be subject to ineffective additional screening, more TSA invasions of privacy and general police state tactics, more delays. I don't have the answer - but I know the ROI from a terrorist perspective is outstanding.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...