Flight 253: "The system worked"?

[Sqrl]

vlad321 said:

Sqrl said:

Sqrl said:

...

It's pretty obvious that if we want to catch these things security measures need to be tighter and as always there is a price to pay for that extra security, which means its not as easy as "yes or no". 

...

@vlad,

On the Franklin quote:  I covered that a bit as quoted above, but thread wasn't really about that so I didn't delve into it further.

On the Al Queda link: The link was established before this terrorist plot occurred from what I've read.  Basically it sounds like his name was already on a terror watch list (which makes me wonder how he got a US Visa), so whatever they used to link him to Al Queda it had nothing to do with a detonator, failed or otherwise.  That of course doesn't mean they are 100% right about the link, just that the bit you're questioning wasn't a factor in this case.

Anyways, the topic was really more about the reaction of the DHS secretary than it was the plot, it's classification as a terror attack, or anything like that.

I watched some news this morning with some commentary. They said he was on a list of 500,000 people. I mean call me crazy, but somehow I don't think Al Queda has half a million people, I'm just thinking they were spreading FUD, but then again he could legitametely be a part of them. Though I don't think he aced on their behalf if the reason the plot failed was a failed detonation.

 

Also sorry for derailing the thread. It was the only thread that had to deal with this thing that I could see on the off-topic board. It is pretty surprising that they can say that the system works, uless their system relies heavily on luck.

Well like I said, it doesn't mean they are right, they just weren't basing their decision to add him to the watch list on the detenator obviously.  I'm sure within those 500k people they have different risk classifications and if he was at a lowest or low level your point definitely holds, but if he were in a high risk category I think the opposite is obviously true.  Either way, as many others have now said, the system can't be said to be working as intended here.

No, it was tangentially related so I don't mind a small side discussion on it so long as the underlying topic isn't lost (its mostly that the first couple of replies really shape a discussion and I didn't want the topic to get lost).