AIR TERROR PLOT

Godiva · Aug 11, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Aug 11 2006, 08:46 PM) [snapback]301862[/snapback]</div>

Where can I find a road map that will let me drive my Prius to Bonaire? (Hint: Netherlands Antilles, off the coast of Venezuela.) I'm just hoping that by November things will have gotten a wee bit less insane.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, you can always take a lot of vacation time and take a boat.

I was planning on flying to Guatemala this December for a wedding. Not so sure now.

Lil Mo · Aug 11, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 11 2006, 01:35 AM) [snapback]301382[/snapback]</div>

On a longer term, you fight terrorism by cutting its supplies. This means not only financial and weapons, but also humans. Offer ordinary people in those countries a better future. This takes time of course. Many people look at it as a "softie" approach. It's not, if it is concerted with hard, but targetted action.

[/b]
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with most of what you have said, but I do think that this statement is a bit naive and elitist "Offer ordinary people in those countries a better future". The mind of the radical cannot be swayed by this offer.

The problems are not being caused by "ordinary people.

tleonhar · Aug 11, 2006

The story I heard was that the explosive was to be carried on as component parts by more than one person. Then once airborne, they would be mixed and set off.

An interesting side note to this is that machinery allready exists that can detect the individual components while the passenger went through the checkpoint, but they were not implimented by the TSA in favor of having more agents. While that sounds logical, but I wonder if you really need to have 6 TSA people on duty at the airport in Mason City, IA when they have a total of 4 flights a day operated with 34 passenger Saab turboprop planes.

As far as putting the explosives in your checked luggage, the CTX scanners that all checked luggage goes through (most major airports), would have picked it up in an instant.

tleonhar · Aug 11, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 11 2006, 03:35 AM) [snapback]301382[/snapback]</div>

/snip

Yes, muslim terrorism is a disease. But your proposed cure (nukes, I suppose) is worse than the disease. It wouldn't help anyway, because the level of worldwide hate that you would create in this way would be unprecedented. And you just can't kill everybody. After your action, then you would really have a stinking problem.

The key to fighting terrorism on a short term is good old-fashioned intelligence. Lots of intelligence: spies, infiltration, the whole nine yards. Then add this to the targetted elimination of their staff, based on the information you collected. We all can learn a lot from the Mossad in this respect. Believe me: for a terrorist, a bombing campain that kills 100 people and 2 terrorists is almost a gift. A single bomb that just kills 2 terrorist chiefs while they are sleeping in their beds is much more scary and effective. Deploying 100.000 soldiers in a country like Iraq does nothing to fight terrorism.

On a longer term, you fight terrorism by cutting its supplies. This means not only financial and weapons, but also humans. Offer ordinary people in those countries a better future. This takes time of course. Many people look at it as a "softie" approach. It's not, if it is concerted with hard, but targetted action.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Great point, especially the desease analogy.

When the black death was killing off much of Europe's population, nothing was very effective against it untill it was cut off at the source (eliminating most of the rats). Typhoyd (sp+?) fever was a deadly killer with a so-so success rate of treatment, when we cleaned up our water supplies, the desease disappeared.

In order to win over the forces of terrorism, while we use our best intellegence and law inforcement to stop attacks before they happin, we will ultimatly only be victorious over the desease by eliminating its breading grounds.

P.S. Lets hope noone out there thinks the breading grounds of terrorism is one of the worlds largest religions.

Godiva · Aug 11, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Aug 11 2006, 09:10 PM) [snapback]301886[/snapback]</div>

As far as putting the explosives in your checked luggage, the CTX scanners that all checked luggage goes through (most major airports), would have picked it up in an instant.
[/b]
Click to expand...

You don't think they can find a way around that?

eyeguy13 · Aug 11, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 11 2006, 01:56 PM) [snapback]301632[/snapback]</div>

I find it so funny that Bush is referring to "Muslim Fascists". The terrorists aren't fascists and I don't think Bush knows the definition of a fascist.

Now read the definition and see if that sounds like any country we know? Or, to be less subtle, if there is any country that has been moving in that direction for the past six years?
[/b]
Click to expand...

True.

Certain people on this forum have been using the term "Islamafascist" for awhile now.

I hate to think politics is behind this. But someone said it right...in this country, terrorism hardens the Republican base and most of the un-informed public--causing the Republicans to win. It's a formula that, like it or not, has worked in the past.

The Neo-Cons are good at what they do.....

IsrAmeriPrius · Aug 12, 2006

The real threat is yet to be addressed:

...a young worker, whom we'll refer to as Hector, is punching in for the 4 p.m. to midnight shift. In a small backpack he carries a radio, a change of clothes and a bagged meal from home. After a shuttle ride from the parking lot, Hector reaches the unguarded door. He types in a PIN code and slides a magnetic badge through a slot. The door buzzes, opens and allows Hector to step inside.

Hector is 24, an American by way of Guatemala, and is employed by a firm that supplies cabin-cleaning services to the airlines. Several large carriers contract with Hector's company, and his first assignment this afternoon will be primping and straightening the economy section of a just-landed Air France 777, later destined for Paris with 270 people on board. Hector hates working these long-haul turnarounds, as the seats and aisles are especially clogged with rubbish.

Once in the building he undergoes no further security checks. It's a short walk to the tarmac, where a van carries Hector and his colleagues to planes that await cleaning.

Perhaps it surprises you to learn that flight crewmembers -- pilots and flight attendants -- are among the few groups of airport workers subject to concourse screening, while tens of thousands of personnel like Hector -- caterers, cleaners, mechanics, gate agents and baggage loaders -- whose duties require unfettered access to jetliners, are able to bypass this checkpoint entirely. Most of these people are themselves airline employees, though a high percentage are contract staff belonging to outside companies. While Steve sits in the cockpit running through the preliminary checklists, everything from his flashlight batteries to his underwear having been given the once-over by a guard, Hector is out back, rummaging through the plane's unminded spaces, free and clear.

Salon - Airport security's dirty little secret: While pilots are searched, thousands of baggage loaders and cleaners waltz right through.[/b]
Click to expand...

Next time you take your seat on a passenger jet, look out the window. You're staring at the part of the airport most vulnerable to terrorists â€“ the "ramp," or "back side" of the airport, where unscreened workers and vendors have access to baggage, air cargo, food supplies, mechanics' equipment and the aircraft itself.

It's the gateway to the next terrorist attack on U.S. airliners, predicts a former airline security consultant.

Forget about hijackers getting on board your flight with knives, or even guns, and start worrying about bombs that may already be on board, says Charles G. Slepian, a security analyst who worked for TWA and now heads the Foreseeable Risk Analysis Center in New York.

He says the most likely way terrorists will bring down a jetliner today is by planting small plastic explosives on board â€“ in the ceiling of the lavatory, in the pouch under your seat, in your food, or in the belly of the plane where unscanned air cargo rides.

Ramp workers are [not] screened for weapons and bombs when they report to the airport each day.

"They don't go through any screening process," with the exception of ramp workers employed at the international airports in Miami and Denver, Slepian said. That's just two commercial airports out of the 428 nationwide, he notes.

The vast majority of ramp workers are not searched, he stresses. Nor are their lunch pails or backpacks

Though food-service and shop workers enter the airport through security checkpoints at the front of the terminal, they are not screened. Nor are the belongings they bring to work.

"The TSA security people just wave them through. They don't go through the actual check," Slepian said. "You won't see them standing in line with you when you're in an airport."

"The only workers you see standing in line with you are the pilots and flight attendants, who if anybody had the opportunity to crash the plane, it would be them," he wryly added. "But we put them through screening because they may have a pen knife."

WorldNetDaily - 10 myths of aviation security[/b]
Click to expand...

Mystery Squid · Aug 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Aug 12 2006, 01:27 AM) [snapback]301990[/snapback]</div>

The real threat is yet to be addressed:
[/b]
Click to expand...

That's what I've always thought... I can come up with a few more the article didn't cover, but I'm not sure I want to post them up in public forum... I'm sure DHS/FBI/CIA is aware of probably anything I can come up with. What I want to know is, what percentage have they assigned amongst themselves, as to the likelyhood of a terrorist act involving commercial passenger jets.... h34r: At the very least, you know it's:

100%>x>0%

:lol:

vtie · Aug 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 11 2006, 07:15 PM) [snapback]301559[/snapback]</div>

Whatever. You have all the answers. Good luck with your Muslim population there and in the rest of europe. I know you need the immigration because of the negative birthrate you guys enjoy and you socialized way of life.
[/b]
Click to expand...

You sounded already like an anxious man. Now you also sound like a bitter man...
Your ideas about the necessity of immigration in Europe make no sense at all. Actually, the immigration from muslim countries is almost zero now. The muslims in our country (and most of Europe) are the heritage of immigration politics 50-100 years ago, in order to seek cheap labor force during the industrialisation. A bit like the Afro-Americans in the US, except that the muslims immigrated voluntarily. But facts never were very meaningfull to you anyway...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 11 2006, 07:15 PM) [snapback]301559[/snapback]</div>

Funny how many terror attacks you guys have had - you seem to be well versed in radicalizing them instead of integrating them.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Again, you are totally confused. There has never been a single terror attack by muslims in my country. You must be confusing with Brittain. It's just plain wrong to lump all countries in Europe on one heap. There are large differences.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 11 2006, 07:15 PM) [snapback]301559[/snapback]</div>

I hope that europe never needs the US to come to its rescue again. the seeds you have sown, again, have some real bad potential for the continent. enjoy life. sit back relax. don't worry, dont even take any precautions (not that you ever did always enjoying the backbone of others) - except, when you do need help, if you do, please do not call for help from the US.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm not Europe. And I'm not responsible for anything that happened in the history of Europe. I was born in 1970. I'm not a politician so I have zero influence. So don't use the word "you" if you talk about Europe. I didn't sow anything in this respect.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 11 2006, 07:15 PM) [snapback]301559[/snapback]</div>

And while your analogy is true, i still make sure my car has all the airbags and other safety equipment i can get - just in case..... you on the other hand seem to want to drive a car without any safety equipment - just playing the odds....
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yes, incidentally, I like living on the edge. I like living 200%. I like extreme sports with a scent of danger. So what? That's my personal choice and I never endanger someone else. You can't live if you are not prepared to die one day.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 11 2006, 07:17 PM) [snapback]301565[/snapback]</div>

I read it, but it is just one of the few examples that people use to disprove the rule. The truth is the Muslim community is not Totally disapproving of the terrorists efforts. Oh, granted they will secretly tell officials some information, but out of shear cowardice refuse to openly condem the actions. (also granted those Muslims who do condem the actions of terrorists are killed by... Muslims)

That is why I gave credit to Vtie's suggestions that it the "heart's and minds" that we have to win over time. (even though he didn't say "win the hearts and Minds" that would be the result of his proposed social engineering). I'm not saying those avenues shouldn't be pursued, but they also cannot be relied upon!
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, I never thought that we could find some common grounds! I actually read the phrase "winning the hearts and minds" this morning, coming from Condoleeza Rice. And it sums it up nicely. But I never said that this is the only strategy that must be followed. I'm an advocate of hard, targetted action against terrorists and criminal fundamentalists, eliminating them physically. But also do every effort to alienate the mainstream population from the extremists. The good old carrot and stick approach.

And your analysis of the passive and even perverse attitude of many muslims against the violent extremism is correct. But I believe that this is the result of a cultural conditioning. I called those people misleaded and I stand by this. It will take a long way and a lot of efforts to change this situation. But I believe that it must be done and can be done. For example, if the US could manage to mediate in a breakthrough in the Palestinian problem that is acceptable both parties, that would be a tremendous signal.
In the mean time, terrorists must be continuously chased and eliminated all over the world.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lil Mo @ Aug 12 2006, 04:00 AM) [snapback]301878[/snapback]</div>

I do not disagree with most of what you have said, but I do think that this statement is a bit naive and elitist "Offer ordinary people in those countries a better future". The mind of the radical cannot be swayed by this offer.

The problems are not being caused by "ordinary people.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Of course I know it's easier said than it's done. But it's a mindset that can result in many different actions. And you perhaps can't change the radicals indeed, but you can drastically reduce the influence thos radicals have on the rest of the population.

daniel · Aug 12, 2006

Bottom line: the principal point of all the "security" measures is to induce panic among the public at large, because the Republicans have concluded that the public see W. as hard on "terrorism" and will vote Republican if they are sufficiently scared.

Airport security is, after all, the last resort. The primary defense against terrorism is good, solid police work to uncover cells before they act and plots before they are carried out. There are enough potential ways to kill lots of people, that whatever the TSA bans from planes, fanatics will be able to come up with something else.

daniel · Aug 12, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 11 2006, 06:57 PM) [snapback]301875[/snapback]</div>

Well, you can always take a lot of vacation time and take a boat.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I have plenty of time, as I'm retired. But I get dreadfully seasick. I love the sea and would spend weeks at a time on boats if I could. Sigh!

IsrAmeriPrius · Aug 12, 2006

In the news:

[Excerpts]

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 11, 5:56 PM ET

WASHINGTON - While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.

A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports "may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions."

Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

"There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy," he said.

"It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats," he said.

The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Yahoo! Associated Press: Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved[/b]
Click to expand...

[Excerpts]

U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says
By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit
NBC News

LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11.

The British official said the Americans also argued over the timing of the arrest of suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan, warning that if he was not taken into custody immediately, the U.S. would "render" him or pressure the Pakistani government to arrest him.

British security was concerned that Rauf be taken into custody "in circumstances where there was due process," according to the official, so that he could be tried in British courts. Ultimately, this official says, Rauf was arrested over the objections of the British.

The official shed light on other aspects of the case, saying that while the investigation into the bombing plot began "months ago," some suspects were known to the security services even before the London subway bombings last year.

NBC News: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests[/b]
Click to expand...

fshagan · Aug 13, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Aug 12 2006, 06:41 AM) [snapback]302086[/snapback]</div>

I have plenty of time, as I'm retired. But I get dreadfully seasick. I love the sea and would spend weeks at a time on boats if I could. Sigh!
[/b]
Click to expand...

You have stated that the tighter security is a ruse to help the Republicans, so why are you afraid of flying?

Salsawonder · Aug 13, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 12 2006, 03:28 AM) [snapback]302041[/snapback]</div>

You sounded already like an anxious man. Now you also sound like a bitter man...
Your ideas about the necessity of immigration in Europe make no sense at all. Actually, the immigration from muslim countries is almost zero now. The muslims in our country (and most of Europe) are the heritage of immigration politics 50-100 years ago, in order to seek cheap labor force during the industrialisation. A bit like the Afro-Americans in the US, except that the muslims immigrated voluntarily. But facts never were very meaningfull to you anyway...
Again, you are totally confused. There has never been a single terror attack by muslims in my country. You must be confusing with Brittain. It's just plain wrong to lump all countries in Europe on one heap. There are large differences.
I'm not Europe. And I'm not responsible for anything that happened in the history of Europe. I was born in 1970. I'm not a politician so I have zero influence. So don't use the word "you" if you talk about Europe. I didn't sow anything in this respect.
[/b]
Click to expand...

In preparation for my trip to Italy I have been learning Italian, enough to get me by and not embarrass my daughter who is currently living there. When I see comments on Hotel reviews, the Americans are crabbin' about the proprietors not speaking English!! Dumb a$$....you chose to go to a foreign country and now you expect them to speak your language!! It is just another sign of the self important attitude that many Americans do have...Just remember that we are NOT all like that.

I am hoping that I will be able to bring a purse instead of a baggie as I go through London on my way to Naples, a book, music. Her boss is bringing her home for 2 weeks on Air Italia. She joked about it coming down to wearing Saran Wrap and having body cavity searches.

The British government and ours are so cozy that nothing would surprise me in this situation.

daniel · Aug 13, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 12 2006, 09:55 PM) [snapback]302448[/snapback]</div>

You have stated that the tighter security is a ruse to help the Republicans, so why are you afraid of flying?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm not afraid of flying. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm afraid of my luggage being lost if the U.S. follows the British lead in disallowing medicines from carry-on luggage. My luggage has been misdirected several times and under the new British rules I'd have been without my meds for 24 hours on several occasions. And I've known plenty of people whose luggage has been lost for longer periods. My second step-father climbed Macchu Pichu and his luggage never showed up. He had to buy all-new (and inferior) equipment there. Had it been me, under the new British rules, I'd have had to turn around and return home immediately if the meds were not available there. (Many meds are available in one country but not another.) This problem could be resolved if the airlines adopted a decent luggage-tracking system similar to UPS's and FedEx's package-tracking systems. This has been a pet peeve of mine for a decade, ever since I began travelling.

A less serious issue, but still a big nuisance, is the delays caused by "security" measures intended to exploit the climate of fear for political purposes, but which don't actually make us more secure.

Schmika · Aug 13, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 11 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]301530[/snapback]</div>

You pea-brained political conspiracy theorists ever stop to consider that maybe the timing of the terrorist attacks are geared to happen just before elections?

The clamp-down on this recent plot happened just before the terrorists were to do a â€œdry run.â€ The actual attack would have come much closer to the midterm elections.

Conspiracy??? Blame the terrorists for the timing.

Just look at the Madrid train bombings, they just-so-happened to occur three days before Spain's general elections . . . in which the Conservative party lost power.

So, if you want a conspiracy, hows this:

Terrorists time their attacks to help liberals win elections . . . because terrorists know liberals are weak on defense.
[/b]
Click to expand...

BEAUTIFUL comback!!!!!

hycamguy07 · Aug 14, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 11 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]301530[/snapback]</div>

You pea-brained political conspiracy theorists ever stop to consider that maybe the timing of the terrorist attacks are geared to happen just before elections?

The clamp-down on this recent plot happened just before the terrorists were to do a â€œdry run.â€ The actual attack would have come much closer to the midterm elections.

Conspiracy??? Blame the terrorists for the timing.

Just look at the Madrid train bombings, they just-so-happened to occur three days before Spain's general elections . . . in which the Conservative party lost power.

So, if you want a conspiracy, hows this:

Terrorists time their attacks to help liberals win elections . . . because terrorists know liberals are weak on defense.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Man, what a great come back!!! (Sometimes the truth really hurts ) :lol: :lol: :lol:

IsrAmeriPrius · Aug 14, 2006

Excerpts from The Boyd Group's Aviation Hot Flash:

TSA's Rule: No Shirt. No Shoes. Now You Can Fly US Aviation Security: Stupidity As An Art Form

But, in light of the latest threat - liquid explosives - our intrepid Department of Homeland Security has implemented the ultimate counter-measures: Ban anything wet on the airplane. No water bottles. No hairspray. No deodorants, No toothpaste. No lip gloss. No mascara.

It's a breakthrough on the war on terror: Counter 'em with bad hygiene.

The Sheep Are Buying It. And, we've already seen Angie Airhead, the 6PM News reporter, on the scene at the airport, interviewing passengers struck in hour-long screening lines:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Click to expand...

Angie: How do you feel about these new security measures?

Traveler, standing tall, strong, and looking with great determination into the camera: "If it promotes the war on terror, I'll gladly give up my tube of Pepsodent!"[/b]
Click to expand...

The only thing it promotes, moron, is tooth decay.

Some folks, reading and hearing the news, would jump right in and agree with the soon-to-be toothless wonder in that security line: Yeah, but if they're gonna use liquid explosives, whaddya suggest we do?"

We'll start with this: The US airport system is a sieve. The ramp areas are about as secure as an unlocked Lexus in the South Bronx. Those guys working on the taxiway? The people cleaning the airplanes? The people slopping the special sauce in the burger joints in the sterile area? The catering truck, and the people driving it? We covered it weeks ago - it's a fact, regardless of the blatant lies coming out of the TSA.

The point is that if rally sophisticated terrorists want to get stuff onto the ramp at big airports, they probably can. So taking a bottle of make-up foundation away from mamma isn't going to do diddly to counter terrorism.

So Here We React, Again. The negligent people running the TSA have ignored the threat of liquid explosive detection for years. Right after 9/11, technologies were discussed that could ascertain if that bottle in the Samsonite. was mouthwash, nitro, or a bottle of cheap hooch. But the TSA ignored them, because the TSA is a political bureaucracy run by incompetents who have had no anticipatory plan to counter anything.

So, now we're all going to be sitting on airplanes, with no chapstick, no make-up, no lipstick, and no mascara. Unless the terrorist is a part-time hooker, this won't do anything except make the coach cabin even less attractive.

The Boyd Group Aviation Hot Flash - August 14, 2006
[/b][/quote]

dbermanmd · Aug 14, 2006

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Aug 12 2006, 06:28 AM) [snapback]302041[/snapback]</div>

Again, you are totally confused. There has never been a single terror attack by muslims in my country. You must be confusing with Brittain. It's just plain wrong to lump all countries in Europe on one heap. There are large differences.
[/b]
Click to expand...

That is true only because why would they attack a country that already supports them and their ideologies?

Spain was attacked and promptly surrendered. England is still fighting - for how much longer I do not know. France already has surrendered too - again without firing a shot. So they already have made huge inroads into europe - much larger than they accomplished in the 1700's.

Mystery Squid · Aug 14, 2006

Israel does have it right with respect to air travel though...

Regarding El-Al airlines:

Security
At least six (formerly two) undercover agents accompany each international El Al flight, sitting amongst passengers whilst holstering firearms. All El Al pilots are former Israeli Air Force fighter pilots, and all El Al flight crew members are trained in hand to hand combat. In fact, most El Al employees have served in the Israel Defence Force (since national service is compulsory in Israel for most citizens).

El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats. All passengers are classified on a basic 3 tier threat scale: Israelis and Jews are usually classified as the lowest threat, Westerners are usually classified as medium level threats, and Arabs (particularly males) are usually classified as high threat. In addition, all luggage must pass through a decompression chamber; this simulates pressures during flight which may be triggers for explosives [1]. El Al is the only airline in the world that passes all luggage through this special chamber.

The El Al fleet is also the only commercial airline fleet in the world to be equipped with anti-missile countermeasures.

As a result of the tight security, only one El Al plane has been successfully hijacked, in 1968 (see below for details).[/b]
Click to expand...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Aug 14 2006, 11:59 AM) [snapback]303005[/snapback]</div>

Excerpts from The Boyd Group's Aviation Hot Flash:
The only thing it promotes, moron, is tooth decay.

Some folks, reading and hearing the news, would jump right in and agree with the soon-to-be toothless wonder in that security line: Yeah, but if they're gonna use liquid explosives, whaddya suggest we do?"

We'll start with this: The US airport system is a sieve. The ramp areas are about as secure as an unlocked Lexus in the South Bronx. Those guys working on the taxiway? The people cleaning the airplanes? The people slopping the special sauce in the burger joints in the sterile area? The catering truck, and the people driving it? We covered it weeks ago - it's a fact, regardless of the blatant lies coming out of the TSA.

The point is that if rally sophisticated terrorists want to get stuff onto the ramp at big airports, they probably can. So taking a bottle of make-up foundation away from mamma isn't going to do diddly to counter terrorism.

So Here We React, Again. The negligent people running the TSA have ignored the threat of liquid explosive detection for years. Right after 9/11, technologies were discussed that could ascertain if that bottle in the Samsonite. was mouthwash, nitro, or a bottle of cheap hooch. But the TSA ignored them, because the TSA is a political bureaucracy run by incompetents who have had no anticipatory plan to counter anything.

So, now we're all going to be sitting on airplanes, with no chapstick, no make-up, no lipstick, and no mascara. Unless the terrorist is a part-time hooker, this won't do anything except make the coach cabin even less attractive.

The Boyd Group Aviation Hot Flash - August 14, 2006
[/b]
Click to expand...

AIR TERROR PLOT

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

Lil Mo New Member

tleonhar Senior Member

tleonhar Senior Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

eyeguy13 Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

vtie New Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

fshagan Senior Member

Salsawonder New Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

Schmika New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

dbermanmd New Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

AIR TERROR PLOT

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

Lil Mo New Member

tleonhar Senior Member

tleonhar Senior Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

eyeguy13 Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member

vtie New Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

fshagan Senior Member

Salsawonder New Member

daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

Schmika New Member

hycamguy07 New Member

IsrAmeriPrius Progressive Member

dbermanmd New Member

Mystery Squid Junior Member