August 31, 2004
— Ace Evidence Supports Prior Reports of Al Qaeda Women Smuggling Explosives Internally?
What makes this especially ominous is this report from six months ago, claiming that Al Qaeda was training female bombers to smuggle explosives inside their vaginas. The plan was to extract the explosives and then assemble the bomb in the toilet, of course.
I have no idea how this country will react to this, if this is the new tactic. As I mentioned when I first noted this story (CAUTION: contains very indelicate language), we're either going to have to subject women to highly, HIGHLY intrusive body-searches or else we're just going to have to allow Al Qaeda to blow up airplanes whenever they feel like it.
If this is the new tactic, it seems to me that this will be the Rubicon as regards racial profiling. Non-Muslim women are not going to put up with being told that they must subject themselves to unscheduled gynecological exams just to be "fair" to all women. And, as humiliating and intrusive as such searches might be, I don't see how we can do anything else but subject only Muslim women (or primarily Muslim women) to this admitted indignity.
Perhaps there's a technological solution. But that too has its problems; I don't know if many women will gladly accept dangerous X-raying of their wombs just to board an airplane.
Note: The original post linked to is not only indelicate as regards language, it contains juvenile jokes that are even less appropriate now than they were when first made. I apologize for that-- but, six months ago, this was more of a hypothetical concern.
Posted by: Dittybopper at August 31, 2004 11:23 AM (JIoy7)
Posted by: hinzman at August 31, 2004 11:45 AM (Z+pFs)
Posted by: misskelley at August 31, 2004 12:49 PM (WkbzV)
Look, the thing we really care about is your hands. So what if each toilet had a "modesty shelf" that folded down on to your lap. Your privates would be blocked from view (most of the time; it could make wiping a pain in the ass) but an attendant or guard watching a camera or through a peephole could make sure that your hands weren't doing anything suspicious.
This would make self-conscious men sit to pee -- sitzklinkers, or whatever it's called -- but it could be an acceptable compromise.
Posted by: ace at August 31, 2004 12:52 PM (RGQgo)
Posted by: see-dubya at August 31, 2004 12:58 PM (mOJjG)
Posted by: ace at August 31, 2004 01:00 PM (RGQgo)
Posted by: Mudfish Billie at August 31, 2004 01:20 PM (ZQAP0)
If that system becomes popular among terrorists, I really fear that the airline industry is in for some pretty difficult days.
Posted by: Juan A. Hervada at August 31, 2004 01:22 PM (Mh+4i)
Dogs trained to sniff out explosives have sensitive enough noses to probably detect explosives, even in a woman's vagina.
As I said, it would have to be done in some relatively private area. This ofcourse would mean even further delays.
Wonderful, wonderful folks, these terrorists, eh?
Posted by: Tim Peters at August 31, 2004 02:00 PM (1e4xp)
Seems that would be a halfway decent "primary stage" filter of secondary inspection for those passengers, if the dogs' ability wasn't overstated. After all, dogs stick their noses into people's crotches all the time, and we're pretty used to it.
Posted by: Alex at August 31, 2004 02:03 PM (hXQiM)
Ever he saw the movie Papillon, he started hiding his C4 or Semtex in a veerrry secret place.
Posted by: Zhang Fei at August 31, 2004 02:03 PM (+YLsR)
Posted by: Alex at August 31, 2004 02:07 PM (hXQiM)
Posted by: See-Duh-bya at August 31, 2004 02:10 PM (mOJjG)
Posted by: minuteman at August 31, 2004 03:28 PM (NjfKA)
Posted by: NoVaMan at August 31, 2004 03:28 PM (Ibfq5)
I noted that in the original blogspot link, in the small-letter update at the end.
Posted by: ace at August 31, 2004 03:42 PM (RGQgo)
Posted by: Wally at August 31, 2004 06:23 PM (Bg0FQ)
I was among those who sided with Ms. Jacobsen's original story that her story was both believable and alarming.
Whereas the passengers onboard flight 327 were in fact musicians, it does not preclude the possibility that they were also rehearsing a bomb plot.
And yes, when we see a commercial airline jet brought down in flight by an explosive device assembled in the plane lavatory, with material smuggled past security screeners by way of a woman's vagina, the impact of this will be catastrophic.
If commercial airlines cannot operate with a guarantee of security, they will fail, and with it will fall not only our nation's economy, but that of the world, as the United States drives the world's economy.
Once we stop the Beavis and Butthead giggling, we must realize that this potential threat is of the utmost gravity.
What to do about it?
Short of cavity searches, dogs, or taking swiped smaples for spectroscopy, I don't know.
As we heard tonight, hope is not enough.
Strong interdiction at our borders, dogged intelligence and surveillance within our borders, and taking the fight to the terrorists where they live is, so far, the best we have to offer.
Posted by: MeTooThen at August 31, 2004 06:30 PM (b/7hi)
Posted by: Dacotti at August 31, 2004 08:57 PM (QvMeW)
If so, then what's the point of internal exams just for women?
Posted by: Reason at September 01, 2004 04:50 AM (eadAR)
"hey baby, what you got up in there?"
"err, nothing sugar, just be gentle..."
Ha ha. Tried to be funny before coffee. Don't take offense anyone.
Posted by: at September 01, 2004 05:13 AM (Z+pFs)
Posted by: IB Bill at September 01, 2004 05:19 AM (nzYvk)
I remember the FBI(?) demonstrating a cosmic-ray scatter device that would "peer" underneath people's clothing. As I remember, the agent was rendered as a plastic type figure and displayed all the weapons they were carrying. Not sure even that would work as a defense to surgical implants.
Tough times ahead folks.
Posted by: Allen at September 01, 2004 06:40 AM (Z8wfe)
Millimeter Wave Radar.
It sees through clothes. VERY well. So well that it seems to have been shelved because of people crying that it allows you to literally undress someone with your eyes.
I'm guessing that some creative use of multple radar freqs can build up a good internal density picture of someone without going to X-rays.
Posted by: Ryan at September 01, 2004 07:12 AM (tg8Uv)
If so, then what's the point of internal exams just for women?
Well, obviously, but I didn't want to bring that up. I don't want anyone looking up my pooper.
I don't know the, ahem, physiology of all this, but I assume that it must be easier to smuggle stuff in cavity A than cavity B.
And the other thing is that we have a report of Al Qaeda training women to carry explosives in their vaginas. Not men in their rectums.
Is the latter possible? Sure. But it's the former we have actual intelligence about.
Posted by: ace at September 01, 2004 09:53 AM (RGQgo)
Posted by: See Dubya at September 01, 2004 11:04 AM (dM8Iq)
Dude, give me a fucking break, okay?
-- Ace of Spades HQ
Posted by: byker at September 01, 2004 01:05 PM (AU0nv)
Well, I don't want to be indelicate either Ace, but I have, shall we say "submissions", into both cavity A and cavity B, and there ain't a lot of room in either one.
Now I know A"" is theoretically large enough for a baby, and though I haven't had one yet, I also know that it takes months of stretching internally, and the exit is extrememly painfull.
I just think that whatever you could fit into A, you could also fit into B.
Posted by: Reason at September 03, 2004 06:35 AM (eadAR)
In regards to Millimeter Wave Radar - this has many of the same detrimental effects as X-Rays when you pump it up enough to penetrate the human body (it is very similar, just a slightly different wave length and lower power).
Dogs can't detect "mules" unless they have handled the contra-band. Dogs would work if it were inserted in the Anus or Vagina, but wouldn't work if the explosives (with timers) were administered orally to reside in the stomach. And yes, this would definately eliminate the "chicken out" factor.
These terrorists are without a nation. This makes our military and intelligence agencies less than effective. Plus Bush has alienated more of the Muslim population by invading Iraq (one of the only liberal middle east countries - Iran or Jordan would have been a more logical choice since they openly support terrorism). Now more and more Muslims are turning to the Shi'ite and other hardline factions.
Terrorism is a sad truth in our free and open global society. Unless you are willing to give up your freedoms, this will remain a fact of life.
"He who gives up liberty for security, deserves neither" - Ben Franklin
Posted by: WSiaB at September 13, 2004 08:15 PM (HXjka)
Posted by: hummed at July 27, 2005 11:33 AM (gKZ0z)
Posted by: roll at September 01, 2005 10:29 AM (pzfnP)
Posted by: nervousness at September 26, 2005 07:54 AM (uTZK+)
Posted by: horsefuck mpegs at October 14, 2005 01:31 AM (/VV5+)
Posted by: cheap chis on sale at February 22, 2011 05:29 PM (5FJ2m)
62 queries taking 1.3301 seconds, 270 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.