[SimonRowberry]

Wildgoose.

With respect, you’re offensive and wrong. Typical knee-jerk (Redneck?) reactions from someone who is clearly utterly ill-informed. Let’s also try to deal with the strategic CAUSES of this entire issue as well, and seek solutions, not just spontaneous, ill-considered reactions.

It is laughable for you to suggest that as a result of us posting “anti-American” views (which seems to mean any criticism of US actions, no matter how well-founded or constructive) on this Forum, that we may then, as a direct result, be singled out for harassment by the US agencies. I presume you are an American? If so, and if what you suggest is true, what happened to the First Amendment to your Constitution, guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech?

Your comments are racist and xenophobic. It is utterly offensive for you to describe the UK as a “recruiting ground for terrorists.” It may also behove you to remember that we (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), too, have suffered enormously from terrorism over many decades, from a variety of different sources.
Remember Noraid?

Although clearly everyone has the right to express a view, no matter how idiotic, offensive, simplistic and ill-informed that view is, I really do think that you should keep such views off this Forum. You, Sir, have no place here.

[Hess963]

Well said Simon !!

Hess

[Expat_Consultant]

Simon

Whether true or not, sadly the UK has a reputation as a ‘terrorist farm’ and London is often refered to as ‘Londonistan.’

I speak as an expat who some people fail to realise is also a UK citizen.

Unfortunately perception = reality for a lot of people out there.

[JonathanCohen09]

Hello everyone,

Well said Simon

Wildgoose, i did not see the post that was removed by the administrator but it must have been pretty bad for him to have done that. Can you please modify your language and stick to facts not emotional outbursts that are very close to, if not crossing a line of acceptability.

Also Wildgoose, can you please confirm what we all suspect that you are simply the reincarnation of Airpocket? There you go, I have asked you a direct question. Why did you need to change your name?

I for one welcome Skymarshalls on flights as long as they are properly trained to the standard of the Israeli Skymarshalls. I agree with Hess and other posters that we should do all possible to prevent the wrong people getting on the planes but the SM’s are a necessary last resort.

Safe travels everyone!!!

Jonathan

[SimonRowberry]

Expat

I hear what you say. However, that does not make Wildgoose’s post any more acceptable.

Our decades of exposure to terrorist attacks, from a wide range of sources, not just the IRA, have enabled us to create a set of security services (internal and external) which are excellent. Let’s not forget how many potential attacks they have apparently foiled since 9/11. They have also had considerable success at addressing the “breeding ground” issue at its source.

To take Wildgoose’s post(s) to its/their logical conclusion would be for us to view all non-Caucasians and/or Muslims as potential terrorists. Such an attitude would be utterly unacceptable and would cause further alienation. In the UK and other countries (Denmark and Finland are two from which I have recent first-hand experience), this is already starting to happen to some extent, particularly in terms of anti-Islam feeling, and this is self-defeating.

We should also remember that the threat is against ALL travellers and is potentially indescriminate – enhanced security is in the interests of all of us, irrespective of colour or creed.

I am convinced that there is actually NO security answer to this problem – there will always be loopholes to be exploited, no matter what measures are put in place. We must be addressing the strategic geopolitical issues in parallel and knee-jerk reactions that cause further alienation will work against this.

The fact remains that the 25 December potential bomber was known to US security services and his own father had alerted agencies about his increasing apparent militancy. The fact that this was not, it seems, acted upon and that he could board a plane, transit AMS and then prepare to detonate a device on board are precisely the issues that should concern us; I am unconvinced that the presence of a skymarshall, armed pilots or FAs or whatever, would have prevented what was an extremely close call.

On the subject of Sky Marshall weapons in the confines of an aircraft – I understand that they use special bullets that are effectively lead shot in a canvass sheath. When they are fired, they are lethal at very short range, but as they move further from the gun the velocity decreases rapidly. I also understand that they are “unlikely” to be able to penetrate an aircraft fuselage for this reason. If this is the case, I suppose the question to be asked is whether Sky Marshalls would be able to get close enough to a potential terrorist to fire the gun with any “meaningful” effect?

By the way, have readers picked up on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8449696.stm

If it is true that Emirates FAs expected passengers to subdue “potential terrorists”, then it gives us a whole new set of issues to worry about…….

Regards,

Simon

[Hess963]

Hi everyone !

Simon good summary–I do concur with your assumption.

Regarding this EK situation—I just do not understand whatever gender, race, sober oder pissed—people should always bear in mind not to make such stupid comments regarding pax safety in a plane. Especially in such times–such offenders have to face the full consequence of their attitude–no excuse at all. Pax should always feel safe before, during and after the flight.

[Wildgoose]

SimonRowberry, if you had, for even a second, taken off your Guevara beret and stepped off your sopabox and read my posting a bit more thoroughly you would have noticed that I said that Arabs,Africans, and Asians would be under more scrutiny. I am not in charge of Homeland Security, I do not formulate the strategies. I am simply stating the obvious, no matter how unpalatable that might seem to you and all the other peas in your pod. I happen to be from one of the three categories mentioned and I am off to the US in a few weeks and I fully expect to be asked to answer detailed questions and, if required to, to be thoroughly ‘frisked’. I won’t enjoy it but it is what I and many others will have to put up with.
Your huffing and puffing won’t change a thing.Homeland Security and other agencies will simply do what they feel like, regardless of how morally outraged you feel. You, sir, matter not a jot to those people who really are in charge.
I’m not American and neither am I “Airpocket”. There, I have answered “directly”.

[SimonRowberry]

Wildgoose,

1. You truly are an odious person with equally odious views. HOW DARE you allude to even having the first idea as to what my politics are?

2. You are obviously also blind as well as stupid and ignorant. It was not I who suggested that you might be Airpocket. I couldn’t care less who or what you are. Clearly you are an offensive insignificance and henceforth do not exist as far as I am concerned.

Please go away and stop polluting this Forum.

[judynagy]

Will all you little children just go play somewhere else? If you need to argue with someone or point out the error of their ways, do it face to face, not in a forum on the internet.

Shame on you for being juvenile. None of us are interested in your dopey rantings unless they relate to the (adult) topic at hand.

[AsiaPacific]

Thanks,,, can we now get back on topic…

I think one of the most frightening things in the last 48 hours is the comment about the passenger being asked by the FA on the EK004 incident to restrain the unruly guy… until the police arrived….
I reasonably regularly fly out of LHR in the evening to Asia and the number of times , pax get boozed up in the airport bar and then tumble onto the plane and cause havoc is far too many. I suggest ( recommend) that pax if necessary have to undergo a breathtest ( so if you don’t want it – don’t fly sir!) in order to enter the aircraft if there is any doubt at all… that may stop some of this continuous nonsense of drunken passengers getting onto a plane at least. Flight crew are pretty adept these days at restricting alcohol whilst on-board but getting onto the plane ‘tanked up’ is just no longer acceptable… Not sure what the limit would be … but lets say 0.1 as a starting point… maybe less.. any thoughts ?

[oldchinahand]

Wildgoose,my post voiced very commonly held views of US airlines and US security and was not overtly anti-American.
The facts are that most American airlines are of a poor standard, America,s security system is still a dud and few people want to travel to the US because the experience at American airports is so awful.

With the demise of ‘Dubya and his triger happy bully boys there is a steadier more intelligent hand on the tiller who is not as inclined to act as though America has some god given right to run the world and that anyone voicing any contary view is automaticaly anti- American.
Hopefully Omama’s more intelligent considered approach will quickly filter through to the grass roots of the inept American security services. This however may take some time as the existing flawed system would appear to be irrecoverable and the Obama apointed Janet Napolitano who runs both Homeland security and the secret service not up to the job.

by CNNs Ed Rollins
‘Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said immediately after the incident that “the system worked,” Clearly the system didn’t work. Her boss, the president, made that plain in his comments Tuesday: “The bottom line is this: The U.S. government had sufficient information to have uncovered this plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack, but our intelligence community failed to connect those dots which would have placed the suspect on the no-fly list,” Obama said
And now we find out our most important ally, Britain, also had sufficient intelligence and had warned us in advance about AbdulMutallab.
Homeland Security was created and all intelligence was put under one entity, headed by the director of national intelligence. But the failures outlined Tuesday are the same failures that caused 9/11. Eight years after 9/11, the system failed. Mr. President, follow the example of your neighbor, the unpopular Redskins owner Dan Snyder, and hold someone accountable. Snyder fired his general manager and his football coach for a failed season. You need to fire someone for the security failures. This is the second big-time security failure this year — the White House gate crashers and now the Detroit bomber. The two agencies that have failed security big-time are the Secret Service and TSA.The person in charge of both agencies is Janet Napolitano. Fire her and convince us that standing in long lines at airports is worth the price. Getting mad is not enough, Mr. President. We’re mad too. But you can do something about it!’

America historically had little need thus has little experience in securing its borders, airports and travelling public against terrorism Its agencies and successive Presidents have been unwilling to take advise from allies who have considerable long term experience and security systems that function well. Hopefully Obama will finaly take the strong action needed to put in place a security system that works. Or will he?

[Wildgoose]

SimonRowberry, you are nothing but a sanctimonious ‘blowhard’. I don’t particlarly care about your politics; again, I’m not quite sure where you got the idea that I a)cared or b)”alluded” to it. I was merely highlighting your total impotence when it comes to doing anything about the Air Marshalls in that you are totally insignificant in the greater scheme of things and nothing you say will change how the US Government decides to secure its aircraft.
Likewise, I don’t particularly care for your existence and you’re even more impotent when it comes to keeping me off this site. I’ll be seein’ ya’ around.

[AsiaPacific]

Guys, grow up or get lost please….. the rest of us are getting tired of the infantile responses…
Pls read ‘judynagy’s’ post and respond to the important topic this thread is about … as we would say “play the ball — not the man ! “

[Wildgoose]

Yes, quite sensible: those appearing intoxicated must be asked to breathalyse so that they aren’t allowed on to the aircraft if they are over a certain limit. Although, this would not stop a terrorist from boarding.It would merely keep the drunkards off.
The only effective way to prevent onboard terrorism is a ‘three-step’ approach:
1)Tighter visa regulations for people from the 14 countries that are “of interest”.
Tighter visa regulations for people from those 14 countries who have spent time in the UK, i.e. as students.
2) More thorough security screening at check-in? This is where the presence of well-trained counter-terroroism/intelligence staff would be helpful as they could monitor and detect any potential miscreants.
4) Air Marshalls on board, as a last line of defence.

No system is perfect, except perhaps El Al’s.
I wonder how those of you who are currently vehemently against Air Marshalls will feel if, one day, your friends/family are victims of terrorism on board. They used to say a ‘Lefty’ is someone who hasn’t been mugged yet. To paraphrase, in this day and age a ‘Lefty’ is someone who hasn’t been hijacked, be it on the ground, in the air, or on the sea.

[Wildgoose]

AsiaP-I’m not the one using words such as “stupid”. I’m trying to contribute to the forum in a sensible manner, albeit it appears my views are contrarian even if, ironically, they advocate for measures that would enhance the wider safety of passengers.What’s worse, by asking me to leave the forum, Rowberry attempts to censor me; so much for his First Ammendment jibe.Is there anything more “odious” than a hypocrite? You want to say what you want by hiding behind the US Constitution (which doesn’t, by the way, extend to you over here in the UK)but can’t stand it when a contrarian view appears, one that you find unacceptable?

[Author]

Posts