War against terror

[ozanzac 0]

I know, I know.

I'm not saying that either is actually trigger happy. Maybe I should have put that in italics.

What I will say is that I'd feel safer if one of, or a designated member of the crew, was in charge of safety aboard the plane. Safer with compartments seperating  and completely isolating flying personell from passengers.

There's better ways to safeguard a plane than to threaten to use force on board the plane.

Prevention is better than treatment.

[SpecOp9 0]

Here's how to fight terror: tell the world what you're looking for.

FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers

Quote[/b] ]FBI Issues Alert Against Almanac Carriers    

Mon Dec 29, 9:29 PM ET

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying almanacs, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning.

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  You can do a lot of things with almanacs, so a lot of people carry them.  And no terrorist would be stupid enough to walk around with an almanac now.

Now some poor librarian is going to get mugged for walking around with a new almanac.

I agree... Being a US citizen, I find this all very dumb.

Uhh Ohh, lets raise the Terror alert becuz it's christmas.. uhh ohh.. lets raise the Terror alert becuz it's new Years! For crying out loud, these people are so dumb... making everybody scared all the time when they are trying to have a good time.

-----

I don't know why the U.S. Soldiers don't dress up in Clown suits. I mean, if the Terrorists are so damn Brilliant, by flying airplanes into a building (genius, really any sadistic mental case could think of that) then do you actually think the Terrorists would expect to shoot a guy in Desert Camo? Or a unexpected clown whipping out a M4A1 and blasting them all to little flinstones pebbles?

[theavonlady 2]

Uhh Ohh, lets raise the Terror alert becuz it's christmas.. uhh ohh.. lets raise the Terror alert becuz it's new Years!  For crying out loud, these people are so dumb... making everybody scared all the time when they are trying to have a good time.

This is not so dumb. It's more often based on obtained information.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]This is not so dumb. It's more often based on obtained information.

Is it? There have been to many alerts to count, but really only one attack (in the US that is).

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]This is not so dumb. It's more often based on obtained information.

Is it? There have been to many alerts to count, but really only one attack (in the US that is).

Did it ever occur to you that it might just be possible that:

1. Annoucing the alert can foil plans.

2. That terrorists attempt to flase lead their targets.

I'm sure you can think up numeorus other possibilities.

I don't think that British Intelligence warned the US about British flights because they bought stock in Continental or Delta airlines a week or two ago.

We have plenty of terrorist warnings here. The vast majority of them turn up to be negative. All you need is to let down your guard once.

[Longinius 1]

1. There is such a thing is crying "Wolf" to many times.

2. You cant really compare the terrorist threat of Israel to the US. Its not even remotely the same situation.

However, contiously alerting to terrorist threats has one good effect. It constantly reminds people that there is an enemy to fight, that there is a threat, which allows a government to get away with stuff they would never be able to pull of in peace time.

[denoir 0]

Regardless, I think we can safely say that the terrorists have gotten just what they wanted. They wanted to create fear and panic and that's exactly what they've accomplished. It was very evident this New Year's eve in NY: metal detectors, police choppers, random car searches etc

It's interesting to see how quickly a society is willing to give up its precious principles once the shit hits the fan.

[Acecombat 0]

Damn i dont wanna be on a plane with a trigger happy F-16 behind me ....

What makes you think they're trigger happy?  They've been trailing planes for weeks and never fired a shot.  Sounds like media-induced hysteria to me.

Why not the last we heard an old lady ona plane set of a alarm that Fighters were sent in for escort IIRC

Whats the odds for example if a plane is taken hostage (as in case of a nromal hostage scenrio and not a suicidal terrorist attack) that the plane might not be blown apart by a sidewinder?

When you get paranoid you accidently do become trigger happy , either the pilot ot the high command.

[Pipski 0]

The authorities these days (according to an airline security consultant) aren't so worried about planes being hijacked in the air and flown into anything as happened with the WTC. This is because when Richard Thingummy, the Shoebomber, tried to set off his wacky device he got the absolute living cucka kicked out of him by the other passengers. It is thought that the vast majority of passengers on a hijacked plane will realize that it is not a situation that will end in negotiations or release but in a crash and will therefore, knowing that they face death anyway, be willing to sacrifice their lives if necessary to tear the limbs of any hijackers.

The real worry atm is deep penetration of airlines by terrorists. In other words, that terrorists may have been trained and given pilot positions by an airline, completely officially and that they will then be able to rather easily take control of an aircraft and direct it where they want with no inteference from passengers. This is, so `tis said, a very real worry right now.

[Placebo 28]

This is because when Richard Thingummy, the Shoebomber, tried to set off his wacky device he got the absolute living cucka kicked out of him by the other passengers.

While I think it's great that he got what he deserved (attempted murder of 200+ people deserves a good old fashioned bitch slapping at the very least), it does make me paranoid the next time I'm on a flight and spot my shoe lace is undone, do I have to call over the "flight attendant" and ask them to tie it for me?

[Donnervogel 0]

It's interesting to see how quickly a society is willing to give up its precious principles once the shit hits the fan.

I think it's partially because many people don't know the "precious principles" their country is built on. So they don't notice it if you take something from them of what they didn't even knew that they had it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Damn i dont wanna be on a plane with a trigger happy F-16 behind me ....

What makes you think they're trigger happy?  They've been trailing planes for weeks and never fired a shot.  Sounds like media-induced hysteria to me.

Why not the last we heard an old lady ona plane set of a alarm that Fighters were sent in for escort IIRC  

Whats the odds for example if a plane is taken hostage (as  in case of a nromal hostage scenrio and not a suicidal terrorist attack) that the plane might not be blown apart by a sidewinder?

When you get paranoid you accidently do become trigger happy , either the pilot ot the high command.

there is a difference between getting an escort and actually taking a jetliner down with a sidewinder.

suppose that a plane was hijacked. what would you do, given that terrorist decided to crash jets into buildings before and cause more casualties then 200 on the jet? it's called risk management. instead of killing 2000 people by not shooting the hijacked jet, they minimize it to 200 on board.

and not everyone here in US is red-eyed paranoid here.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]there is a difference between getting an escort and actually taking a jetliner down with a sidewinder.

suppose that a plane was hijacked. what would you do, given that terrorist decided to crash jets into buildings before and cause more casualties then 200 on the jet? it's called risk management. instead of killing 2000 people by not shooting the hijacked jet, they minimize it to 200 on board.

and not everyone here in US is red-eyed paranoid here

Indeed but sending in fighters to escort because of a old ladys tantrum is PARANOID or Miss communication BIGTIME .

What did the pilot say to control tower that they felt the urge to send in a fighter jet?

Though i agree with risk management but over doing it can have quite the opposite results if not monitored and dealt with responsibility.

And as i said it was only a old lady what if there was really a hijacking and the pilot only managed to say that the planes been jacked what guarentess are there that they wouldnt shoot it down even if the hijackers only intent was to get some attention and hae something negitioted by the authorities as these scenarios often end like?

[ralphwiggum 6]

it's called following the procedure. after 911 any jets that had some sort of unruly passengers were escorted. do you seriously think those pilots of jetfighters escorting were looking for a chance to shoot down civilian airplane? hell no. probably they were laughing their ass off

Quote[/b] ]Though i agree with risk management but over doing it can have quite the opposite results if not monitored and dealt with responsibility.

yes, and no sych "over-doing" has happened so far.

Quote[/b] ]And as i said it was only a old lady what if there was really a hijacking and the pilot only managed to say that the planes been jacked what guarentess are there that they wouldnt shoot it down even if the hijackers only intent was to get some attention and hae something negitioted by the authorities as these scenarios often end like?

I guess those Algerians who hijacked Air France a few years ago wanted 3 times of more fule than it needed to fly from Marseillies to Paris wanted to get attention? Their intention was to crash land on paris. and how can you be sure that the hijackers are only in for attention?

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]I guess those Algerians who hijacked Air France a few years ago wanted 3 times of more fule than it needed to fly from Marseillies to Paris wanted to get attention? Their intention was to crash land on paris. and how can you be sure that the hijackers are only in for attention?

Well then how do you know their intention is to crash land anywhere?

Crashing planes in buildings hasnt been a trend in hijacking ever since it started happening (whenever was that?) , usually these hijackings are a part of some gaining international medias attention and extracting their demands by govts through pressure of killing hostages. Its been only after 9/11 that we can think oof a building and a plane ramming ..... considering if we look at all hijacking stats i am sure (i havent yet) that the number of hijackings done to be crashlanded or ram in to buildings is VERY LOW maybe in the tens at the MOST.

[ralphwiggum 6]

just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean that it won't. can you honestly say that Air France needed that much fuel? can you for fact prove that Algerian hijackers were not going to do that?

in fact, airline hijacking and blowing up has happened in the past. it's not just a way to gain attention. there has been several cases where airplanes were hijacked and blown apart(remember Mr. Shoelace-doesn't-lit-well? )

it was only after GIGN saved the hostages and investigations thereafter that showed that it was intention of hijackers.

just because it is a rare occasion doesn't mean that it will never happen again. in fact when you blow up a jet, 300 people die, but a well placed crash into a tall building produced 2500, well above what a jetliner can carry AND cause enough temporary economic shock.

[ran 0]

2 mirage 2000C ...... a single Super 530 missile ..........

you know we do have an airforce which maintains a couple of planes maintained in alert on each base , don't you ?

thinking that the Air France's plane hasn't been escorted to the Marignane airport and after is stupid.

The goverment has the authority through our air defence command to order a passenger plane to be shot down if leaving flight corridors and behaving unnaturally

[denoir 0]

Fingerprinting and photographs now mandatory for entry in the US

Quote[/b] ]New US security regulations have come into force that will see most foreign visitors having their photographs and fingerprints taken.

The rules apply to all those requiring visas, exempting only 28 countries.

Those arriving under the visa waiver programme - which includes most Europeans - are not affected.

The measures replace the old special registration programme, which was said to have discriminated against Muslims and people of Middle Eastern origin.

But claims of discrimination are still being made by some of those countries whose nationals are affected.

Brazil has made formal complaints and started fingerprinting and photographing all US citizens arriving at its main international airports.

All 115 US airports that handle international flights and 14 major seaports are covered by the programme, under which customs officials can instantly check an immigrant or visitor's criminal background.

A similar programme is to be launched at 50 land border crossings by the end of next year.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge formally launched the programme at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in the southern state of Georgia.

Called US-Visit, or US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, it will check an estimated 24 million foreign visitors who enter the US each year through airports or seaports on tourist, business and student visas.

Digital technology will be used to take fingerprints and photographs, which will be electronically checked against a national digital database for criminal backgrounds and any terrorist lists.

Eventually, the process will be repeated when the foreigners leave the country as an extra security measure, and to ensure they have complied with visa limitations.

Mr Ridge said the system had been tested at the Atlanta airport for several weeks and had proved a "resounding success", adding just 15 seconds to the average check.

He said US-Visit was part of a policy that aimed to ensure the country was "open to visitors but closed to terrorists".

The technology was "easy for travellers to use but hard for terrorists to avoid", he added.

Officials in charge of the programme, which has been planned for some time and has nothing to do with the current high state of alert, say that in the long run the new checks will make travel formalities quicker to negotiate.

But travel industry analysts warn that the steady tightening of security on international flights will lead to a corresponding increase in delays and cancellations.

The US official in charge of the programme, Asa Hutchinson, says that will not be the case.

"This takes a matter of seconds... we're taking every step to make sure that this facilitates the passengers that come through our airports and does not delay them," he said.

There are also concerns that the checks could foster ill-feeling.

"You also have look at the costs of these policies... for example, the special registration programme resulted in 13,000 orders of deportation on people who tried to register with the government," Tim Edgar of the American Civil Liberties Union told the BBC's World Today radio programme.

"That kind of response can cause problems with governments around the world that we are trying to have a better relationship with."

The system was scheduled to begin on 1 January, but was delayed to avoid the busy holiday travel period.

The visa waiver programme allows citizens mainly from European nations to visit the US for up to 90 days without visas.

This is really, really stupid and will only serve to hurt the US tourism. It's a grave intrusion of privacy and you can't expect many visitors when you treat them worse than criminals. Although the EU countries are excluded, there is no guarantee that they won't fingerprint you. There is no way in hell that I'll travel to the US while such a fascist system is in place. And my well earned euros will be spent elsewhere.

Besides being humiliating to visitors, it's utterly inefficient against terrorists. How many of the terrorists in the world do you think have their fingerprint on file?

Here's another jewel: US home guard. People are expected to volunteer to watch real-time video feeds of strategic locations around the US and report if they see anything suspicious. What's next? A report-your-neighbour campaign Å• la KGB?

Mark my words, in 20 years people will be refering to this era in the same way as people today are refering to the McCarthy-era in the 50's.

[theavonlady 2]

Fingerprinting and photographs now mandatory for entry in the US

Brazil Judge Orders U.S. Citizens Fingerprinted

Quote[/b] ]BRASILIA, Brazil (Reuters) - A Brazilian judge furious at U.S. plans to fingerprint and photograph Brazilians entering the United States has ordered Brazil to do the same to U.S. citizens, police said on Tuesday.

The order, set to go into effect on Jan. 1, came after a government office filed a complaint in federal court over the U.S. measure aimed at millions of foreign travelers.

"Unless the court order is contested in the justice system, it will be complied with," said a spokesman for Brazil's Federal Police, the agency overseeing immigration.

Starting Jan. 5, citizens of countries such as Brazil who need a visa to enter the United States will be fingerprinted and photographed when they pass through immigration at major U.S. airports and seaports.

The procedure is meant to identify people who have violated immigration controls, have a criminal record or belong to groups the U.S. government lists as "terrorist" organizations.

The checks will not be carried out against citizens of 27 nations who do not need a visa to enter the United States.

"I consider the act absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis," said Federal Judge Julier Sebastiao da Silva in the court order released on Tuesday.

Brazil currently requires U.S. citizens to have a visa when entering the country.

[KJAM 0]

(even though i rarely agree on any american policies) personally id rather take the extra time of going through all the hassle and possible delays/cancelations for extra security, than go from check in desk to plane in 2 minutes flat and becoming 1. part of a weapon, 2. held as hostage or anything else that a terrorist could think of.

people complain about privacy, it isnt probing too much into your privacy, i mean come on a couple of fingerprints and a photo of you to. 1, ensure you are who you say you are, 2. it would also stop people stealing other peoples passports and then with a quick slice or two take your identity as their own.

im not saying its the best way.......but consider this, which would you rather have, a bit of a delay or being used as part of a human bomb/crash missle weapon thingy. i think i know what i'd prefer

[denoir 0]

You have thousands of flights every day in the world. How often do hijackings happen? How often do people take over planes and fly them into buildings? Very very seldom. It's an over-reaction.

Furthermore, this system would have not in any way prevented the WTC attacks. The hijackers had no prior criminal records and they entered the US legally.

And it is a very grave violation of privacy. You have no way of telling to what end they'll use the data once it's in a central database. In normal cases, you need to be arrested before the police has the right to fingerprint you. Such rules exist for a very good reason.

So now you have a system that is:

1) Intrusive to privacy

2) Impractical

3) Useless for catching terrorists.

[ozanzac 0]

I 100% agree with you Denoir.

All it takes is a sole determined individual to easily slip through the system, and you've got yourself another incident.

I took a look at that US homeguard web site and whilst going through their 'Learn more' scaremongering propaganda, realised that the terrorists had actually already won the war, they haven't just terrified you, they've just about petrified you. Scared you so much that your all shifty eyed on one another now, and that your way of life really has dramatically changed over the past 28 months.

These latest 'security' measures really are just an inconvienence on peoples lives. If you can't see that, you really are scared out of your wits. The government is making America look more like a big jail, it's people are the prisoners, the authorities are the wardens and international visitors get treated as if they're the criminals.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Since the planes involved in 9 11 were all US planes, on as far as I remember internal flights, it would make more sense to fingerprint everyone getting on a US internal flight.

Of course it makes more sense not to give in to terrorism in the first place.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

Since the planes involved in 9 11 were all US planes, on as far as I remember internal flights, it would make more sense to fingerprint everyone getting on a US internal flight.

Did you forget about the shoe bomber?

What about the current UK warnings on British flights?

[walker 0]

Since the planes involved in 9 11 were all US planes, on as far as I remember internal flights, it would make more sense to fingerprint everyone getting on a US internal flight.

Did you forget about the shoe bomber?

What about the current UK warnings on British flights?

Hi Avon

Yes on a british flight and caught by the passengers who will now all in future when they visit the US be fingerprinted like criminals.

Intresting point that have there about UK and French flights none so far on the US flights. Have there been any arrests of the people who the US said were due on the flights?

By the way glad you seem to agree that US should stop giving in to terrorism.

Kind Regards Walker