Originally Posted by
JSmith1969
There's no personal attack at all: You clearly have poor reading comprehension skills, since you take evidence that proves TSA's shoe carnival is pointless as supporting the shoe carnival.
Please answer these questions, then:
If shoes are a viable threat, why have no planes been brought down by shoe bombs in countries that don't have a mandatory shoe carnival?
If shoes are a viable threat, why were no planes brought down before August 2006, when the shoe carnival was not mandatory?
The world has been lucky.
The world WAS lucky.
I keep pointing out that it is viable, you keep indicating it is not. Give me reasons it is not. You could cite the ability to obtain the types of explosives used in this type of endeavor would be difficult (which I would counter with the black market angle, not to mention the ability to download directions for most types of explosives from the internet and the fact that some of the terrorist organizations have connections that can make it much easier for an organized group). That would be a reason it is not viable (a wrong reason, but a reason), the fact that it hasn't been used (previous to Reid or since) is not a good reason to say it is not a viable method. The method is there and actually fairly easy, hence the protocols used now. Obviously we are not communicating very well, because it is a viable method. I did not take information supporting the fallacy (thanks for the word I haven't used since college Irish!) that it is not viable as information for my point. I merely used an older phrase to point out that the argument being used most here can be placed into the same phrase and it is true. "Because we have not had an attack of this nature, it is not a viable threat" it is a perfect fit. It is also erroneous. Assaulting my ability to read and comprehend means you have reached an impasse in what you have to add to the argument, further reinforced by the fact you keep repeating "why have planes not been falling out of the sky if this is viable". This is probably due to a series of things -
1. The people that would use this method may have not done so simply out of expedience (the shoe protocols make it difficult to do this in the US or coming to the US).
2. The people that would use this method may be waiting until an important time frame to make a bigger statement (waiting until several of their people are in place to do so all at one time for more impact)
3. There could be problems with the command structure of the organization that would use this method (several figureheads have been killed over the last few years).
4. We all got lucky.
5. They may not have the money to pull it off.
6. They may not have the technical savvy to get it to work the way they want it to (the front enders are not usually the bomb makers, just the ones with a desire to further the cause with a bang and glory).
7. Did I mention we may have just gotten lucky?
Shoes are a viable method for bringing a plane down. You can disagree with the screening protocols all you want to, but the method is there and fairly easy (all it takes is boom, and a hot glue gun and you are in). The screening procedures are there until TSA can come up with a better method of screening them sufficiently.
