Why not rectally inserted bombs?? much easier and cheaper [and messier].....but seems it could be done. Then just have the fuse hanging out and the terrorist can just lite it and try to sit still while it is burning it's way up to the bomb.

I hope I'm not giving anyone any ideas......

Why did both the shoe bomber and underwear bombers try to light themselves up while in their seats? Why not in the privacy of the WC? I never expected the people they convince to blow themselves up to be very smart but they must really be the bottom of the barrel not to be able to figure that one out.

Why did both the shoe bomber and underwear bombers try to light themselves up while in their seats? Why not in the privacy of the WC? I never expected the people they convince to blow themselves up to be very smart but they must really be the bottom of the barrel not to be able to figure that one out.

Good question. Maybe they were afraid they would get into trouble for setting off the smoke alarm?

Why did both the shoe bomber and underwear bombers try to light themselves up while in their seats? Why not in the privacy of the WC? I never expected the people they convince to blow themselves up to be very smart but they must really be the bottom of the barrel not to be able to figure that one out.

Doh. Of course they were not very smart. What's new?

Not much different to dumb leatherneck grunts blindly assaulting a hill or whatever.

What's your point? That the Islamist recruiters are dumb for scraping so low in the barrel?....you could be right there......but what is your point?

Why did both the shoe bomber and underwear bombers try to light themselves up while in their seats? Why not in the privacy of the WC? I never expected the people they convince to blow themselves up to be very smart but they must really be the bottom of the barrel not to be able to figure that one out.

Doh. Of course they were not very smart. What's new?

Not much different to dumb leatherneck grunts blindly assaulting a hill or whatever.

What's your point? That the Islamist recruiters are dumb for scraping so low in the barrel?....you could be right there......but what is your point?

What's my point? It was a question.

btw - those "dumb leatherneck grunts" could easily take down a plane. Why do you hate so much? America. The Jews. The military. The list goes on.

Why did both the shoe bomber and underwear bombers try to light themselves up while in their seats? Why not in the privacy of the WC? I never expected the people they convince to blow themselves up to be very smart but they must really be the bottom of the barrel not to be able to figure that one out.

Well actually there is quite the story to go with that thought....But of course it would be considered a conspiracy theory here.

Yet most would as you did chalk it up to the supposed terrorist being so smart to get pass controls yet so stupid to attempt light up in his seat where he can be heroically stopped.

Will not take much looking to find the various reports if your interested.

Off-topic post removed.

If they were to blow their underwear or shoes up in the toilet, would the explosion likely be big enough to bring the plane down?

I would think they might want to be sitting next to the outside of the plane to effect maximum damage.

If they were to blow their underwear or shoes up in the toilet, would the explosion likely be big enough to bring the plane down?

I would think they might want to be sitting next to the outside of the plane to effect maximum damage.

I was on a transatlantic flight, business class once (yeah, only once) and the WC was twice the size as in economy and it had a window.

If they were to blow their underwear or shoes up in the toilet, would the explosion likely be big enough to bring the plane down?

I would think they might want to be sitting next to the outside of the plane to effect maximum damage.

I was on a transatlantic flight, business class once (yeah, only once) and the WC was twice the size as in economy and it had a window.

I trust you did the honorable thing and pulled the shade down before you did your deed.

To mention that childish toilet humour is.....childish, would be as off-topic as the previous post.

As would a mention that 2nd childhood comes with senility.....A completely off-topic and irrelevant comment.

To mention that childish toilet humour is.....childish, would be as off-topic as the previous post.

As would a mention that 2nd childhood comes with senility.....A completely off-topic and irrelevant comment.

Why do have the need to attack posters who are merely expressing a little humor?

To mention that childish toilet humour is.....childish, would be as off-topic as the previous post.

As would a mention that 2nd childhood comes with senility.....A completely off-topic and irrelevant comment.

1. In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

2. Forum rule number 5).

5) Not to post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling.

Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

To mention that childish toilet humour is.....childish, would be as off-topic as the previous post.

As would a mention that 2nd childhood comes with senility.....A completely off-topic and irrelevant comment.

Why do have the need to attack posters who are merely expressing a little humor?

So you find childish toilet humour to be funny too?

To mention that childish toilet humour is.....childish, would be as off-topic as the previous post.

As would a mention that 2nd childhood comes with senility.....A completely off-topic and irrelevant comment.

Why do have the need to attack posters who are merely expressing a little humor?

So you find childish toilet humour to be funny too?

As is often the case, you avoided answering the question.

As did you...perhaps you should lead by example before you critisise others.

I didn't answer your question because it was one of those "Do you still beat your wife" type questions.

Never mind....

Now, we have strayed off topic......sorry about that.

When this report first came out, AlJazeera, as usual gave the most balanced news report and mentioned that experts are not even sure that such a device would be viable. There would have to be an external switch (which is detectable) because wireless would be unreliable transmitting through flesh.

I've wondered about prosthetic limbs. Some are made from special alloys, which I suspect would be x-ray proof. I bet there is no shortage of amputees in Afghanistan tp strap one on. ....there is a more likely threat.

When this report first came out, AlJazeera, as usual gave the most balanced news report and mentioned that experts are not even sure that such a device would be viable. There would have to be an external switch (which is detectable) because wireless would be unreliable transmitting through flesh.

I've wondered about prosthetic limbs. Some are made from special alloys, which I suspect would be x-ray proof. I bet there is no shortage of amputees in Afghanistan tp strap one on. ....there is a more likely threat.

I can just imagine a very hairy Afghan with a wooden leg coming up to the boarding gate! All sorts of bells would have rung long before that.

When this report first came out, AlJazeera, as usual gave the most balanced news report...

As usual.

When this report first came out, AlJazeera, as usual gave the most balanced news report...

As usual.

fair, balanced and hacked news only from Rupert Faux Murdoch!

And Herr Naam of course.

And Herr Naam of course.

Jawohl. Achtung K'UG!

When this report first came out, AlJazeera, as usual gave the most balanced news report and mentioned that experts are not even sure that such a device would be viable. There would have to be an external switch (which is detectable) because wireless would be unreliable transmitting through flesh.

I've wondered about prosthetic limbs. Some are made from special alloys, which I suspect would be x-ray proof. I bet there is no shortage of amputees in Afghanistan tp strap one on. ....there is a more likely threat.

I can just imagine a very hairy Afghan with a wooden leg coming up to the boarding gate! All sorts of bells would have rung long before that.

A very hairy Afghan.

Is that Afghan pot growing in the background?

The odd thing is that use has been made on an 'internal bomb' in September 2009 targeting a Saudi Prince. The result was that the bomber died literally cut in half and the Prince who was next to him had minor injuries.

The body for lots of reasons makes a very poor explosive container. The different tissue densities absorb and direct forces in a number of ways. Put simply the amount of explosives to make a human bomb work effectively would be such that the individual would be close to, if not actually, wheelchair bound.

Further AFASIK it hasn't been tried again.

Regards

The odd thing is that use has been made on an 'internal bomb' in September 2009 targeting a Saudi Prince. The result was that the bomber died literally cut in half and the Prince who was next to him had minor injuries.

The body for lots of reasons makes a very poor explosive container. The different tissue densities absorb and direct forces in a number of ways. Put simply the amount of explosives to make a human bomb work effectively would be such that the individual would be close to, if not actually, wheelchair bound.

Further AFASIK it hasn't been tried again.

Regards

That's right....that was the other thing alluded to in the balanced (as usual) Al Jazeera report when they cited experts who were doubtful of the viability of such a device.

...that was the other thing alluded to in the balanced (as usual) Al Jazeera report...

That one never gets old.

...that was the other thing alluded to in the balanced (as usual) Al Jazeera report...

That one never gets old.

Just wait UG. I bet next time he'll say "Fair and balanced."

Every time I have watched Al Jazeera, it has struck me that no other media organization makes as much of an effort to present both sides to a story.

What, exactly, is it that makes people laugh at the mention of their balanced approach?

Every time I have watched Al Jazeera, it has struck me that no other media organization makes as much of an effort to present both sides to a story.

What, exactly, is it that makes people laugh at the mention of their balanced approach?

I've never had a problem with the English language AJ. They covered the Russian-Georgian 5 day war much better than CNN & BBC combined. I'm told the Arabic version is much more biased though.