USA imitates France

arketipp wrote:
> *Associated Press/AP Online
>
> NEWARK, N.J. - Baggage screeners at Newark Liberty
> International Airport spotted - and then lost - a fake bomb planted
> in luggage by a supervisor during a training exercise.
> Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag,
> containing a fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock,
> made it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.

Basically all that was missing were the actual explosives...

oh, wait!

> Earlier this month, French authorities lost a bag containing
> real explosives that were being used to train bomb-sniffing dogs.
Who said the US and France cannot work together?

Cheers,

Froggy

>> Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag,
>> containing a fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock,
>> made it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.
>
>Basically all that was missing were the actual explosives...
>
>oh, wait!
>
>> Earlier this month, French authorities lost a bag containing
>> real explosives that were being used to train bomb-sniffing dogs.
>Who said the US and France cannot work together?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Froggy
>
>

Put together a few more nations "security screeners/testers" and we will have
something pretty familiar.....

The UN !

take care

Blll

The UN.....nations working together to CREATE and PERPETUATE problems
worldwide....why just mess up your little corner of the world when we can band
together and do it right!

>From: bllfs6@aol.com (BllFs6)
>Date: 12/16/2004 9:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20041216090719.06175.00001345@mb-m27.aol.com>
>
>>> Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag,
>>> containing a fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock,
>>> made it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.
>>
>>Basically all that was missing were the actual explosives...
>>
>>oh, wait!
>>
>>> Earlier this month, French authorities lost a bag containing
>>> real explosives that were being used to train bomb-sniffing dogs.
>>Who said the US and France cannot work together?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Froggy
>>
>>
>
>Put together a few more nations "security screeners/testers" and we will have
>something pretty familiar.....
>
>The UN !
>
>take care

That was bitter.



Popeye
The only working atomic bomb platforms the
Japanese ever had were delivered via airmail.

"James Connell" <jconnell@gci.net> wrote in message
news:10s20ndohg8ul21@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>

> seems quite comparable to me - French dogs missed a bomb, US people
> missed one. all it proves is - the american security people are no
> smarted than the french dogs!

I can definitely see the comparison. Both the French screeners and the
American screeners are not prepared to properly do their job.

"James Connell" <jconnell@gci.net> wrote in message
news:10s20ndohg8ul21@corp.supernews.com...
> Ramone Cila wrote:
>
> >>
> >>Yes a fake bomb.....But... complete with wires, a detonator and a clock,
> >
> >
> > Which if discovered by crooks, crackpots or children would still be a
> > ***fake bomb***.
> >
>
> the main point is - the US lost a bomb that Looked like a bomb,
> it may not have been real but it looked real to the incompotents that
> let it slip through.

Really...like one of those bombs in a cartoon? Dynamite, wires and an alarm
clock. Gee, you'd think Americans would have been smart enough to put the
bomb in a bag or box....wouldn't ya?

> The french were training bomb sniffing dogs with a plastic exposive.
> dogs don't care what it looks like - as far as I've been able to
> discover that's all it was - a package.

I don't think you need "pounds" of explosives if you are training a sniffer.
But boy, I still wonder why the American testers didn't put their "fake
bomb" in a box just like those wiley Frenchies did :^)

You're sure about that, are you James, that the Americans didn't put the
bomb in a bag or box to disguise it......just a little bit :^) Ya think they
just threw a bomb-looking device on a conveyer and lost it?

Froggy wrote:

>> NEWARK, N.J. - Baggage screeners at Newark Liberty
>>International Airport spotted - and then lost - a fake bomb planted
>>in luggage by a supervisor during a training exercise.
>> Despite an hours-long search Tuesday night, the bag,
>>containing a fake bomb complete with wires, a detonator and a clock,
>>made it onto an Amsterdam-bound flight.
>
>
> Basically all that was missing were the actual explosives...
>
> oh, wait!
>
>
>> Earlier this month, French authorities lost a bag containing
>>real explosives that were being used to train bomb-sniffing dogs.
>
> Who said the US and France cannot work together?
>

A US piece of luggage and a french parcel meet at the conveyor belt.

Says the US parcel, "move, cause God is on my side"
Says the french parcel, "Let there be light".

Matthias

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1iwd.312$wi2.233@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..

> I can definitely see the comparison. Both the French screeners and the
> American screeners are not prepared to properly do their job.

Sorry, but if the USA were imitating France, they would have lost high
explosives. But they were, instead, more circumspect about the possibilities
and used a fake bomb for training. And if it were to be a sniffer test they
wouldn't have used, or needed to use, **pounds** of high explosive material.

There simply is no correlation between the two. Both agencies were testing
their systems and as such there is an expected occurrence of loss, if it was
easy and you would always find the bomb.....why do it. As such it seems
almost stupid that the French used that much explosive material.

"Ramone Cila" <dontw@nt.spam> wrote in message
news:6Kiwd.367$Lw.3041@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f1iwd.312$wi2.233@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> > I can definitely see the comparison. Both the French screeners and the
> > American screeners are not prepared to properly do their job.
>
> Sorry, but if the USA were imitating France, they would have lost high
> explosives. But they were, instead, more circumspect about the
possibilities
> and used a fake bomb for training. And if it were to be a sniffer test
they
> wouldn't have used, or needed to use, **pounds** of high explosive
material.

Obviously the circumstances are different. The fact remains that the
abilities of each group are now in question.

One one side of the pond, they hid a "bomb" and lost it. On the other side,
we hid a "bomb" and lost it. The rest is just details.

>
> There simply is no correlation between the two.

Wow. No correlation at all? None whatsoever? You can't draw any similar
conclusions from the two incidents?

> Both agencies were testing
> their systems

uh oh... that may be a correlation...

> and as such there is an expected occurrence of loss

If it's exected in both cases, some would argue that a correlation exists.

> , if it was
> easy and you would always find the bomb.....why do it. As such it seems
> almost stupid that the French used that much explosive material.

I can't say that I disagree.

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0Vjwd.648$iC4.466@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com. ..

> Obviously the circumstances are different. The fact remains that the
> abilities of each group are now in question.

That is a wholly different subject than the issue of whether or not the
errors were equal (imitates) in severity.

I don't think anyone anywhere would argue that the abilities of any group to
intercept 100% of bombs and packages.

As far as your further comments on "correlation" you got off track a bit.
Context is such a difficult proposition for this ng :^). I was speaking to
the suggestion that there was equal import in both loses, not whether or not
the activities precipitating the loses were similar.

"Ramone Cila" <dontw@nt.spam> wrote in message
news:U9kwd.378$Lw.4303@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0Vjwd.648$iC4.466@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com. ..
>
> > Obviously the circumstances are different. The fact remains that the
> > abilities of each group are now in question.
>
> That is a wholly different subject than the issue of whether or not the
> errors were equal (imitates) in severity.

Funny, I don't remember anyone saying that the losses were equal in
severity. I'll have to go back and read the thread again. What I read is
that the French screwed up and lost a "bomb" and the Americans screwed up
and lost a "bomb". Sounds like a pretty good imitation to me. Neither bomb
was immediately viable, but one loss (the French one) was most assuredly
more problematic than the other.

> As far as your further comments on "correlation" you got off track a bit.
> Context is such a difficult proposition for this ng :^).

I agree, except I would change the "this" to any (IME).

> I was speaking to
> the suggestion that there was equal import in both loses, not whether or
not
> the activities precipitating the loses were similar.

There is equal import to both losses in the short run. The important part
about both situations was not even that the security forces couldn't find
the bombs, but rather that they had found them and then lost them again.