> Pits wrote:

>> On May 6, 6:59 am, Sylvia Else wrote:

>>> rebel wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:22:53 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> One has to wonder what it is about boxes of fake flowers that can
>>>>> attract the suspicion of bagage handlers.

>>>> unaccompanied baggage + Islamic name and/or inscription = profiled risk

>>> Makes sense. Islamic terrorists haven't a clue how to avoid having their
>>> bomb containing packages deemed a risk, and always put Islamic names on
>>> them.

>

>>>>> Perhaps it's just that the authorities feel that once anyone forms a
>>>>> suspicion about a box, not matter how baseless (the suspicion, not the
>>>>> box) it has to be treated as rational. Bizarre, but no more so than
>>>>> treating obvious bomb jokes as if they were genuine threats.

>>>> The consequences of NOT treating them as a real threat are clearly something
>>>> that they weren't prepared to risk. You would do otherwise?

>>> There doesn't seem to have been any evidence of a credible threat here.
>>> If we're going to treat anything coming from an Islamic country as a
>>> threat merely because of its origin, then we'd better stop trading with
>>> them.

>

>>> Sylvia.

>

>> Sylvia you are talking without all the facts -again. How on earth
>> can you make the vexatious claim to lack of "credible evidence"
>> take it to the bank -THERE WAS .

>
> What was it?
>
>
>

>> From where it came had no bearing on the matter or perhaps little
>> in this instance . It is a profile factor to be sure but was NOT the
>> reason OK !
>> You presume to assume far too much lass in many of your posts .

>

>> And you have stated that you are a project analysts of sorts in other
>> threads . Gawd help us .

>
> No. I've never said that.
>
> Sylvia.