Newsstand - BA flight cancelled...

At the request of the British government:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/01/plane.screened/index.html

So...who's going to fire the first shot at the Nazi-like and reactionary British gov't.?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
At the request of the British government:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/01/plane.screened/index.html

So...who's going to fire the first shot at the Nazi-like and reactionary British gov't.?</font>

Me! Me! Please call on ME!!!


It is an hysterical reaction, simple as that.

Compare to any other hysteria: anarchism and dynamiting around 1900, the communism and McCarthyism hysteria circa 1950 etc.

Is there a kernel of truth here? Yes, of course, there is a little. But this is an example of human nature: hysterical fear and mob rule.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
But this is an example of human nature: hysterical fear and mob rule.
</font>

Ah yes richard...so inspiring to see that you and your cohorts here at FT have transcended human nature.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
Me! Me! Please call on ME!!!


It is an hysterical reaction, simple as that.

Compare to any other hysteria: anarchism and dynamiting around 1900, the communism and McCarthyism hysteria circa 1950 etc.

Is there a kernel of truth here? Yes, of course, there is a little. But this is an example of human nature: hysterical fear and mob rule.

</font>

Or alternatively, if you aren't living in fear of government, it is simply the result of intelligence deemed of sufficient gravity to cause a flight to be cancelled, based on actionable and detailed information. In order to protect lives.

I tend to go with that theory, since it is based on widely published reports, fits all available facts, and is the simplest explanation, which is usually the most accurate. See Occam's Razor for details.

Of course, subcribing to such a theory would also require one to define a legitimate role of government as including the obligation to collect, process and use data in order to protect its citizens, and that is a political view that some find so unmpalatable that they would rather put lives and economies at risk.

Terrorists detained: 0

Of course, we don't know what 'advice' was provided by our allies ... and how 'free' we were to take our own decisions ...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Terrorists detained: 0</font>

People killed: 0.

This is a fun game, Spiff.

One of the disinformation techniques you make excellent use of is a simple reality: security forces have to be right 100% of the time to win, whereas terrorists need only get past them once in order to be victorious. That is the way the world is, and is the key benefit of terrorism to extremists.

Since the price of a single failure is so high, we go to extraordinary lengths, especially when there is credible, specific, and actionable intelligence.

But you know all of this. This isn't at all about security to some. It is about politics, and not caring about lives.

[This message has been edited by Felix Unger (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Roger:
Of course, we don't know what 'advice' was provided by our allies ... and how 'free' we were to take our own decisions ...</font>

So...England is under the control of W?

I imagine you're referring to the United Kingdom?

The 'sky marshals' were appointed at the request of the US Government. There have been enough posts here to suggest that decison was taken for us at the risk of losing flights to the US.

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Roger:
I imagine you're referring to the United Kingdom?</font>

The UK, England, the EU...however paranoid you want to be. It's all under the control of W according to your earlier post, right?



[This message has been edited by H2O_Goalie (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
The UK, Endland, the EU...however paranoid you want to be.
</font>

I take this to be a personal attack, Moderator.

And anyway, where is Endland?

My opinion, not an attack: it is unfortunate if somebody doesn't know the difference between the UK, Endland (wherever that is) and the EU and expects to be taken seriously.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
People killed: 0.

This is a fun game, Spiff.

One of the disinformation techniques you make excellent use of is a simple reality: security forces have to be right 100% of the time to win, whereas terrorists need only get past them once in order to be victorious. That is the way the world is, and is the key benefit of terrorism to extremists.
</font>

We could achieve the same result by canceling all flights. Or we could rely on my magic, anti-terrorism rock. It is just as effective as the decisions made to continue to terrorize travelers. Trouble is, the terrorists are no longer doing the terrorism.

How much longer are you going to keep playing the politics card, Felix?

You're the one who mindlessly supports every decision these fools make, whereas I and many others oppose much of this stupidity because we simply do not want to be harassed and do not like to see our time, money and liberty wasted with no increase in safety.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Roger:
I imagine you're referring to the United Kingdom?

The 'sky marshals' were appointed at the request of the US Government. There have been enough posts here to suggest that decison was taken for us at the risk of losing flights to the US.

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited Jan 01, 2004).]</font>

Well if you believe that, then you also must draw the logical conculsion that you live in a gutless country, one that won't stand up for what it thinks is right.

Do you think that's the country you live in?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Roger:
I take this to be a personal attack, Moderator.
</font>

Wah wah...where's my mommy?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Main Entry: para·noia
Pronunciation: "par-&-'noi-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek, madness, from paranous demented, from para- + nous mind
Date: circa 1811
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
- para·noi·ac /-'noi-"ak, -'noi-ik/ also para·noic /-'noi(-i)k, -'nO-ik/ adjective or noun
- para·noi·cal·ly /-'noi(-i)-k(&-)lE, -'nO-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb
</font>

I'd say any group of people running around insisting that the US government is behind decisions made by foreign governments that they happen to disagree with fits #2 quite well.

And pardon my mis-typing of England as "Endland". Clearly you've never misspoken. Oh, wait, you edited your post as well. You're not perfect...just paranoid.

## EDITED FOR MISSPELLING...I'M NOT PERFECT ##

[This message has been edited by H2O_Goalie (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
Since the price of a single failure is so high, we go to extraordinary lengths, especially when there is credible, specific, and actionable intelligence.</font>Care to provide any examples? In another thread you said that stuff like this is all over the "news media" but even after being prompted you never provided any links, quotes, or examples.

YAY for another win against terrorism. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

The terrorists are laughing right now. It's fun to make people paranoid, cancel flights, and waste thousands of man hours and billions of dollars, all through the one time action of 19 hijackers.

I bet OLB is so busy rolling on the floor of his cave with laughter at the overreaction of the security apparatus in this country he is unable to collect himself to plan another attack.
If this crap keeps up he wont have to.
We are going "secure ourselves into "Fortress America" and subsequently out of existence.

But dont you worry, heard on CNN News today" " the security precautions must have worked..we had no incidents on New Years Eve.."
All is well with the world.
mike

[This message has been edited by MIKESILV (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

Only flaw with most arguments about over reaction from people on here is that we went through years of bombings by the IRA. They'd call in a coded warning about a bomb that'd been planted which would turn out to be false or ambiguous. Next time they called it wasn't and people would die or be maimed. Why the hell do some of you guys figure that terrorists play by some sort of rules ?

Favourite trick, plant a bomb, call in a warning with very rough details of where it's planted. Police clear people into what they believe is a safe area and then the murdering gits blast the crap out of civilians including kids and pregnant women.

We've had years of warnings about unattended bags and suchlike and we take notice because we've been through it.

Try knocking on some guy's door telling him that his wife and child have been spread all over the walls because the warning was ignored. After all we wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone would we.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Roger:
I take this to be a personal attack, Moderator.

And anyway, where is Endland?

My opinion, not an attack: it is unfortunate if somebody doesn't know the difference between the UK, Endland (wherever that is) and the EU and expects to be taken seriously.</font>

He might not know the difference between
the England, the UK or the EU but expect a quote from the big book he keeps by his PC
and you cannot help from being mightly impressed.
mike

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MIKESILV:
He might not know the difference between
the England, the UK or the EU but expect a quote from the big book he keeps by his PC
and you cannot help from being mightly impressed.
mike </font>

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I'm not going to respond to the abusive rantings of a Neil Simon character, except to quote from another post:

... I am not paranoid about government ...

There's that word again http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif. 'Methinks he doth protest too much.' Not an attack but a quotation from Shakespeare.

I use reason and judgement in each case, rather than a knee jerk reaction based on my predefined politics.

But of course, dear boy, of course.

[This message has been edited by Felix Unger (edited Jan 01, 2004).] Whoops, how did that get in here? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

I'm a little confused. Are you folks (Spiff et al) suggesting that we do nothing in response to intelligence that a particular flight has been targeted? Or if you think we should be doing something different, what specifically are you suggesting?

H2O_Goalie,

The Founding Fathers enshrined paranoia (vis-a-vis the Federal government or any government) in the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights, and the right to bear arms, comes from just that paranoia. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
We could achieve the same result by canceling all flights. Or we could rely on my magic, anti-terrorism rock. It is just as effective as the decisions made to continue to terrorize travelers. Trouble is, the terrorists are no longer doing the terrorism.

How much longer are you going to keep playing the politics card, Felix?

You're the one who mindlessly supports every decision these fools make, whereas I and many others oppose much of this stupidity because we simply do not want to be harassed and do not like to see our time, money and liberty wasted with no increase in safety.

</font>

Just to be sure I understand...

You namecall every politician and security person mindlessly and without any regards to the facts of any specific incident, using a lot of very colorful and empty invective....

but I am the one with a problem, because I support the government and what it is doing, and...

this isn't pure libertarian hokum politics on your behalf?

Just trying to make sure I understand, because sometimes what you direct at me is very unclear.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
Just to be sure I understand...

You namecall every politician and security person mindlessly and without any regards to the facts of any specific incident, using a lot of very colorful and empty invective....</font>Let me get this straight -- you namecall everyone who doesn't tote the line of the Shrub administration mindlessly and without any citing of facts of any specific incident, using a lot of very colorful and empty invective. When asked to supply facts you simply ignore the question and opine on a different topic.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by xyzzy:
Let me get this straight -- you namecall everyone who doesn't tote the line of the Shrub administration mindlessly and without any citing of facts of any specific incident, using a lot of very colorful and empty invective. When asked to supply facts you simply ignore the question and opine on a different topic.

</font>

Thank you for defining your agenda, in your own words, as being grounded in your politics, rather than any genuine interest in protecting lives.

I don't debate politics, since they are personal and tend to be locked in. I do get irritate dwhen people pretend to be interested in security as a deceptive way of advancing a political agenda. The appropriate place for such musings would be in Omni or the Security forum (possibly) but not "In the News." All of these threads should be there, not here.

[This message has been edited by Felix Unger (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by beergut:
Why the hell do some of you guys figure that terrorists play by some sort of rules?

Try knocking on some guy's door telling him that his wife and child have been spread all over the walls because the warning was ignored. After all we wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone would we.</font>

Unfortunately, beergut, any thread on security issues in this forum de facto becomes a screaming match between the "Government Can Do No Wrong" and "Government Can Do No Right" groups.

Much of what Homeland Security and the TSA have done is pointless, useless, and has done more harm to the transporation industry then good.

But I do not believe that the government has been batting .000 and that some of these extreme measures may have had benefits in preventing future attacks.

But yes, as Northern Ireland and Israel show, short of absolute and complete termination of every member of the other side, no defense is full-proof. But so far we've stopped em all. Now what we need to do is review our measures and see which ones are working and which ones are not, and get rid of the latter.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
I don't debate politics, since they are personal and tend to be locked in.</font>No, you don't debate *anything*. You simply assert your opinion, convert any followup questions into things you won't discuss, and move on to the next topic.

Please tell us about the (your words) "...Credible, specific, and actionable intelligence" that you seem to think is all over the news.



[This message has been edited by xyzzy (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

just maybe the British Government had actual information of substance rather than random hysteria:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html
"The terror threat at home, often overlooked As the media focus on international terror, a Texan pleads guilty to possessing a weapon of mass destruction. Last month, an east Texas man pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon of mass destruction. Inside the home and storage facilities of William Krar, investigators found a sodium-cyanide bomb capable of killing thousands, more than a hundred explosives, half a million rounds of ammunition, dozens of illegal weapons, and a mound of white-supremacist and antigovernment literature."
"There is no value for the Bush administration to highlighting domestic terrorism right now," says Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas in Austin. "But there are significant political benefits to highlighting foreign terrorists, especially when trying to whip up support for war."
"The government has a severe case of tunnel vision when it comes to domestic terrorism. I have no doubt whatsoever that had Krar and his compatriots been Arab-Americans or linked to some violent Islamic fundamentalist group, we would have heard from John Ashcroft himself."
"The lesson in the Krar case is that we have to always be concerned about domestic terrorism. It would be a terrible mistake to believe that terrorism always comes from outside,"
"The fact is, the number of domestic terrorist acts in the past five years far outweighs the number of international acts"
"Still, investigators have been unable to answer questions such as: Where was the sodium-cyanide bomb destined? And were the weapons being prepared for a group or sold individually? "
"He points to a case he calls one of "the major terrorist plots of the 1990s" in which militia from around the country converged in central Texas allegedly to attack a military base. They were arrested at a campground near Fort Hood on the morning of July 4, 1997, with a large collection of weapons and explosives. There was virtually no media coverage of that incident either,"
"Excuse me, a chemical weapon was found in the home state of George Bush," says Levitas. "I'm not saying the Justice Department deliberately decided to downplay the story because they thought it might be embarrassing to the US government if weapons of mass destruction were found in America before they were found in Iraq. But I am saying it was a mistake not to give this higher profile."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/patriotact/

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by xyzzy:
Originally posted by Felix Unger:
I don't debate politics, since they are personal and tend to be locked in.</font>No, you don't debate *anything*. You simply assert your opinion, convert any followup questions into things you won't discuss, and move on to the next topic.

Please tell us about the (your words) "...Credible, specific, and actionable intelligence" that you seem to think is all over the news.

[This message has been edited by xyzzy (edited Jan 01, 2004).]

I believe if you enter the words in any search engine, you will find hundreds of stories. Or refer to The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, et al.

The other part of your post is nonsense designed to deflect the conversation away from the topic, and it doesn't belong here. If we had effective moderation, it wouldn't be here.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
People killed: 0.

This is a fun game, Spiff.</font>

Of course, if we don't want anyone to die, we could just cancel all commercial aviation.

And to be safe, we could just all hide under our beds forever too. You can never be too safe, you know.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
Of course, if we don't want anyone to die, we could just cancel all commercial aviation.

And to be safe, we could just all hide under our beds forever too. You can never be too safe, you know.

d</font>

Or, as an alternative, we could always develop a multilayered flexible system that roots out threats by taking advantage of all known information, enhanced physical security, and decisive action when planes are at risk.

Oh, wait. That's what we are doing. Or are you suggesting that losing some lives to terrorists is okay?

More information on yesterday's cancellation in The Times (London) today.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-949227,00.html

I believe non-UK readers need to register, so here are some extracts.

Hijacking fear grounds flights to America
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent and Tim Reid in Washington

Alarm over terror threat to BA as jet fighters intercept airliner

BRITISH AIRWAYS abruptly cancelled its afternoon flight to Washington yesterday amid growing public concern that Britain and America have specific intelligence of a plot to hijack a BA airliner ...

Officials appear to be acting on information concerning a particular BA flight number without knowing on what day that threat might materialise. BA operates three flights a day from Heathrow to Washington, but only the 3.05pm departure — Flight 223 — was affected on both days ...

about Wednesday's delayed arrival:
David Litwick, a passenger, said he saw four FBI agents questioning a woman who appeared to be from the Middle East, repeatedly asking her why she was not travelling with her husband. Nobody was arrested.

A US national security official said authorities were acting on specific intelligence — and not just suspicious passenger names. “We had concerns with individuals on the flight, but threat reporting information led us to make the decision to have the flight escorted. It was fact-related.”

about yesterday's cancelled flight: Yesterday’s flight was cancelled and its 180 passengers transferred to other services also on “security advice”, according to the Department for Transport. A US Homeland Security spokesman said: “We had some information about this flight. We shared it with the British Government who decided to cancel it.” ...

Denmark and Sweden announced yesterday that they would resist those demands, but British ministers confirmed last week that marshals are already working under cover on transatlantic flights, despite strong opposition from the main pilots’ union.

British Airways said yesterday that it and other airlines already sent each passenger’s passport details to the US about 20 minutes before a flight was due to leave. But airlines are now bracing themselves for frequent last-minute cancellations and delays in the face of increasingly stringent US security demands.

A BA spokesman said that it hoped to resume normal service today: “We plan to operate our Washington services to schedule but given what happened . . . we will make a decision tomorrow.”

It may be worth pointing out part of that article to a contributor here who claims not to be paranoid but who reckons so many others are http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif.

Yesterday’s flight was cancelled and its 180 passengers transferred to other services also on “security advice”, according to the Department for Transport. A US Homeland Security spokesman said: “We had some information about this flight. We shared it with the British Government who decided to cancel it.”

(My bolding.)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Roger:
It may be worth pointing out part of that article to a contributor here who claims not to be paranoid but who reckons so many others are http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif.

Yesterday’s flight was cancelled and its 180 passengers transferred to other services also on “security advice”, according to the Department for Transport. A US Homeland Security spokesman said: “We had some information about this flight. We shared it with the British Government who decided to cancel it.”

(My bolding.)</font>

Point out to me where is says that the US gov't. suggested/asked/demanded that they cancel the flight. Oh, wait...you can't, because they didn't. The British gov't. decided to do it based on the information shared with them.

You know...a situation something along the lines of a friend telling you "that movie really sucked" and you deciding to cancel your plans to see it. Your friend shared information...he didn't demand you not see the movie, or secretly make the decision that you weren't going to for you...then run around telling everyone you made it.

So you're still paranoid.

And just to ease your mind, I'm well aware of the difference between Endland, the UK and the EU.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MIKESILV:
I bet OLB is so busy rolling on the floor of his cave...</font>

Who the hell is "OLB"? Why would an Outside LineBacker be living in a cave, let alone rolling on the floor of it? You know, I have several big books next to my computer...among them a dictionary. Also many issues of Time, Newsweek, etc.

Perhaps you'd like to borrow them?

I've just realized that our (less than) able moderator must've studied at The School of the Americas...after all, my posts seem to disappear like some kind of dissident whisked away in the middle of the night by the death squads. Great job dick...

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
I've just realized that our (less than) able moderator must've studied at The School of the Americas...after all, my posts seem to disappear like some kind of dissident whisked away in the middle of the night by the death squads. Great job dick...

</font>

Before you go slamming richard, you might want to slam UBB. I've had posts dissappear as well and not due to moderator editing.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

Hmmm ...

Add naivete to the incapability of rational thought. And using medical terms without diagnosis or probably qualification is not wise.

Yes, freedom of expression http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif, but there are limits.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by SEA_Tigger:
Unfortunately, beergut, any thread on security issues in this forum de facto becomes a screaming match between the "Government Can Do No Wrong" and "Government Can Do No Right" groups.

Much of what Homeland Security and the TSA have done is pointless, useless, and has done more harm to the transporation industry then good.

But I do not believe that the government has been batting .000 and that some of these extreme measures may have had benefits in preventing future attacks.

But yes, as Northern Ireland and Israel show, short of absolute and complete termination of every member of the other side, no defense is full-proof. But so far we've stopped em all. Now what we need to do is review our measures and see which ones are working and which ones are not, and get rid of the latter.</font>

That's why I usually keep out of security threads, nothing seems to be discussed just the usual rants and name calling.

The USA has a steep learning curve to go through regarding these issues and of course not everything is going to go right. Who knows, perhaps in time the TSA will be able to please all of the people all of the time http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Nigel

I think the government should stop panicking the public and do its job in protecting the travelling public.

Rather than ominously cancel any and all flights that happen to match some non-descript "chatter", they should secretly replace the FA's and/or flight crew with anti-terrorist agents who will monitor questionable flights. Carefully screen all luggage, and even potentially ship suspected luggages via cargo planes separately, but don't announce this action publicly. Lay a trap for the terrorists, carefully screen passengers on the flights at risk.

If all goes well, the public will not be aware of the changes in operations. If there were no threats of terrorism on the flights, then no one is panicked unnecessarily. If terrorists are indeed captured and stopped on these flights, then the public will gain more confidence in the ability of the government to protect them.

Right now the media cirus and show-and-tell of plane cancellations, reverse screenings, do nothing but panic the travelling public, and waste man hours and tax payer money.

As a recent CIA analyst stated on a news show "This color-coded non-sense does nothing but panic the public, who are unable to do anything to protect themselves against vague, non-specific information of potential threats. Terrorists don't attack on a color-coded schedule, and we shouldn't have a color-coded threat matrix, at least not publicly. Most of this public hub bub is all 'Cover Your ...' type of actions by the government. Unless there is specific, credible, and actionable intelligence, the government should NOT panic its citizens by communication vague warnings. And when there is specific, credible, and actionable intelligence, this should not be made public unless it will help the public either avoid injury or aid in the capture of the terrorists."

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Lpas:
I'm a little confused. Are you folks (Spiff et al) suggesting that we do nothing in response to intelligence that a particular flight has been targeted? Or if you think we should be doing something different, what specifically are you suggesting? </font>

The BA 223 LHR-IAD has been canceled again today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3362043.stm

Wow. Don't you feel safer already?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dcmike:
The BA 223 LHR-IAD has been canceled again today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3362043.stm</font>

FWIW, I heard a BBC news report on this today that said the flights were only cancelled after everyone was already on-board and the flights were ready to go.

Morons..... Mooooroooonnsss!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Before you go slamming richard, you might want to slam UBB. I've had posts dissappear as well and not due to moderator editing.

</font>

I never, ever ever delete a post. Never.

On rare occasions (less rare lately) I will delete comments from a post if those comments violate TOS of FlyerTalk and, for example, have no content other than personal attacks on other FlyerTalkers.

And in other news, BA has cancelled tomorrow's flight (BA263) to Riyadh, citing security reasons.

BA Cancels Saudi Flight (http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2366755)

I'm glad I will not be using BA for any travel any time soon. This airline quite obviously cannot get its act together and/or allows the US into to bullying it into inconveniencing its passengers.

All these flights canceled for "security reasons"? Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
All these flights canceled for "security reasons"? Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!

</font>

The relentless ranting and raving continues. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif At what point would it be acceptable to you to cancel a flight for security reasons? Do we have to see the guy with the dirty bomb waiting at the gate? Does he actually have to board the plane? If he deplanes prior to takeoff should we give him a voucher and an apology and send him on his way?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cactuspete:
The relentless ranting and raving continues. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif At what point would it be acceptable to you to cancel a flight for security reasons? Do we have to see the guy with the dirty bomb waiting at the gate? Does he actually have to board the plane? If he deplanes prior to takeoff should we give him a voucher and an apology and send him on his way?</font>

With all these cancellations, I want proof.

One tight-lipped cancellation, I might accept. As more and more occur with no arrests and no proof, the TSA and FBIs' credibility approaches zero.

These incidents are hardly isolated, either. By acting irresponsibly, we allow terrorists to terrorize by picking up a pay phone, making a non-specific threat and then go laugh their asses off while we act like idiots. Sorry, I don't buy it anymore without proof and I will harshly criticize any future actions until I see some proof.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited Jan 02, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cactuspete:
The relentless ranting and raving continues. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif At what point would it be acceptable to you to cancel a flight for security reasons? Do we have to see the guy with the dirty bomb waiting at the gate? Does he actually have to board the plane? If he deplanes prior to takeoff should we give him a voucher and an apology and send him on his way?</font>The interesting thing is that this really *IS* political. There's lots of hype about "security incidents" requiring cancellation of BA / AF flights all over the news. That kind of hype makes it seem like the government is doing something, and it keeps up the hype of the endless "War on Terror."

Yet, there's been nary a mention of a man found with all the makings of a dirty bomb and 500,000 rounds of ammunition in East Texas. Articles here:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-12-19/pols_naked6.html
http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=1563239&nav=2FH5JewF
http://www.world-crisis.com/more/317_0_1_0_M/

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
With all these cancellations, I want proof.

One tight-lipped cancellation, I might accept. As more and more occur with no arrests and no proof, the TSA and FBIs' credibility approaches zero.

These incidents are hardly isolated, either. By acting irresponsibly, we allow terrorists to terrorize by picking up a pay phone, making a non-specific threat and then go laugh their asses off while we act like idiots. Sorry, I don't buy it anymore without proof and I will harshly criticize any future actions until I see some proof.

</font>

British Defense Analyst Paul Beaver:

"There seems to be very hard intelligence coming from the United States that there is a serious threat to Flight 223 — the British Airways flight," Beaver said. "It's flight-related, not passenger-related or freight-related. And this is related to something which may be targeted in the Washington area — some sort of spectacular … either flying the aircraft into something or detonating it over Washington itself."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Travel/Investigation/canceled_flights_040102-1.html

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">ABCNEWS has learned that the cancellations on the London-Washington route were due to information from a "human source" overseas and analysis of other intelligence. The human source, whose credibility U.S. officials have been unable to confirm, said plans were in place to specifically take over Flight 223 and crash it into Washington.</font>

Very interesting development. Hopefully time will tell if this was a prank, terrorists testing the system to see how easy they can make us jump, or a true security threat.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
With all these cancellations, I want proof.
</font>

OK. What in your opinion is sufficient "proof"? And proof of what?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cactuspete:
OK. What in your opinion is sufficient "proof"? And proof of what? </font>

I think Spiff is asking for accountability. So far a lot of the cancelled flights from AF have been revealed to be nothing but poor mishandling of passenger names on a terror list. 'French officials now say that they were all cases of mistaken identity, in some cases as a result of mistaken transliteration of Arabic names. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Travel/Investigation/canceled_flights_040102-3.html)

It is not wrong to ask for accountability, and to ask if the situations can be better handled than it was mishandled, apparently, in the AF case.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cactuspete:
OK. What in your opinion is sufficient "proof"? And proof of what? </font>

The people suspected were arrested or at least identified...

The plot consisted of...

The device to be used was found to be...

None of these things have been provided, just vague threats, the kind that could be made by any yutz with a quarter or a half-Euro...



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
British Defense Analyst Paul Beaver:

"There seems to be very hard intelligence coming from the United States that there is a serious threat to Flight 223 — the British Airways flight," Beaver said. "It's flight-related, not passenger-related or freight-related. And this is related to something which may be targeted in the Washington area — some sort of spectacular … either flying the aircraft into something or detonating it over Washington itself."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Travel/Investigation/canceled_flights_040102-1.html </font>

Just something to think about: What percentage of staff people working on the Iraq/ME situation at the CIA's facility in Langley are there at the time BA 223 flies into the DC area?

BA 217 is in the area around lunch time -- a lot of people not there. BA 225 is in the evening, and a lot of people are gone home for the day. BA 223 gets the maximum amount of our guys in McLean as it is before the end of the work day for most with the parking lot being a substantial target too there ... a la the Pakistani Mir Kanzi's objective.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 02, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
"It's flight-related, not passenger-related or freight-related. And this is related to something which may be targeted in the Washington area — some sort of spectacular … either flying the aircraft into something or detonating it over Washington itself."
</font>

I don't get it - "flight related" but not freight or passenger related. A flight is a number. It consists of a plane, crew, passengers and cargo/bagagge. So if it's not cargo or passenger, and no one mentioned crew (especially since they rotate and are different every day) and it wasn't the plane which was "debriefed" after landing the other night - what gives?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by alect:
I don't get it - "flight related" but not freight or passenger related. A flight is a number. It consists of a plane, crew, passengers and cargo/bagagge. So if it's not cargo or passenger, and no one mentioned crew (especially since they rotate and are different every day) and it wasn't the plane which was "debriefed" after landing the other night - what gives?</font>

It must be remote control override? Not!
Talk about living in lala-land or sci-fi land. Or someone watched too many movies from 1999/2000 about a hacker taking control of a plane via autopilot overrides that he pre-installed and then threatened to crash the planes into nuclear power plants and/or a city if the ransom was not met.]

I'm trying to figure this one out as well. Maybe we'll be able to find out soon.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by alect:
I don't get it - "flight related" but not freight or passenger related. A flight is a number. It consists of a plane, crew, passengers and cargo/bagagge. So if it's not cargo or passenger, and no one mentioned crew (especially since they rotate and are different every day) and it wasn't the plane which was "debriefed" after landing the other night - what gives?</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by UALOneKPlus:
So far a lot of the cancelled flights from AF have been revealed to be nothing but poor mishandling of passenger names on a terror list.</font>

A bit more, from the Guardian: http://tinyurl.com/ypop5

did someone mention sci-fi above ?

Bid to beat lorry bombers
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=6872004
THREE years after a lorry driver slammed an 18-wheel vehicle into California’s state capitol building, lawmakers are considering a plan to link those carrying hazardous material to a satellite tracking system that would halt them if they were being used in a terror attack.

The lorries would be equipped with devices that would either cut off fuel to the engine or hit the brakes when activated. The proposed bill would implement the United States’ most stringent safety regulations for lorries carrying fuel and other hazardous materials, but it faces fierce opposition from haulage companies who fear becoming uncompetitive.

Assemblyman John Dutra, unhappy with the slow federal pace in addressing the issue, introduced the bill last February, and it passed easily in the state assembly. Amid protest from industry groups, the bill failed to get past the transportation committee in the state senate, where it will be reconsidered this year.

"These vehicles could be used as deadly weapons," Mr Dutra said. "Ten seconds after a tragedy of this sort, with trucks we could have disabled, everybody’s going to ask the question, ‘Why didn’t we do this?’"

At the cost of US$26 million, all of California’s 26,000 fuel delivery lorries could be equipped with satellite tracking and disabling devices, he said.

California’s highway patrol commissioner, Dwight Helmick, whose agency has been studying a variety of technologies to prevent a terror attack by a hazardous material lorry, said two or three petrol tankers are stolen every year in California, highlighting the risk. "We talk about all the magical ways of blowing up the Golden Gate Bridge. The easiest way would be to take a truck in the middle of it and detonate it," Mr Helmick said

Anyone can fill up tanks with gasoline and use their car as a bomb. Or they can drive on the sidewalk and mow crowds of people down.

Destruction is easy -- there is no end to the possibilities. Even the government of Israel, in a very insecure situation, only averts 8 out of 10 attacks, and the 2 out of 10 make the headlines.

So, all these canceled flights are actually saying that:

Checking your Id 5 times does not work.

Screening your baggage does not work.

Going through your carry on bags does not work.

Groping passengers at the gate does not work.

AND THIS IS ON A FLIGHT WITH EXTRA ATTENTION.

So, why are we doing all of this?

Hello, management 101?

International flights getting back on track (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/03/terror/)

"Flight problems stemming from security concerns eased somewhat Saturday, although a British Airways flight to Washington that was canceled two days in a row was delayed again at London's Heathrow Airport, the airline said...

...The sources said the information had nothing to do with the passenger list, but focused on the flight number. And while there remained some question about the credibility of the information, officials say authorities cannot take chances. "

Actually, you can take chances. It's called risk management. You take many chances every day of your life. "Officials" can either make intelligent decisions based upon the credibility of threats, or they can allow themselves to be jerked around like puppets on a string, permitting terrorists to terrorize on a whim and from a payphone.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,1115705,00.html

and

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1115870,00.html

[This message has been edited by Marco Polo (edited Jan 03, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
British Defense Analyst Paul Beaver:

"There seems to be very hard intelligence coming from the United States that there is a serious threat to Flight 223 — the British Airways flight," Beaver said. "It's flight-related, not passenger-related or freight-related. And this is related to something which may be targeted in the Washington area — some sort of spectacular … either flying the aircraft into something or detonating it over Washington itself."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Travel/Investigation/canceled_flights_040102-1.html </font>

Why doesn't BA just renumber the flight?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/03/flight.cancel/index.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1115868,00.html

SHE Bomber - a new angle
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13776147_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-SHE-BOMBER-name_page.html


[This message has been edited by Marco Polo (edited Jan 04, 2004).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
The people suspected were arrested or at least identified...

The plot consisted of...

The device to be used was found to be...

None of these things have been provided, just vague threats, the kind that could be made by any yutz with a quarter or a half-Euro...

</font>

And why in the world do you think that you "need" to know this information? What difference does it make to you? If the authorites are acting on specific intelligence (as is clearly the case here), then its in everyone's best interests not to reveal sources, methods and specifics.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by cactuspete:
And why in the world do you think that you "need" to know this information? What difference does it make to you? If the authorites are acting on specific intelligence (as is clearly the case here), then its in everyone's best interests not to reveal sources, methods and specifics.</font>

Because I'm paying for it and potentially harassed by it! If it was a rare, isolated incident, I'd be ok with few details being released. These clowns have been getting jerked around so much and responded so unintelligently to so many false alarms that I now demand ACCOUNTIBILITY, something that is severely lacking in our nation's "security" obsession. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif


------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
...I now demand ACCOUNTIBILITY, something that is severely lacking in our nation's "security" obsession...</font>

Cool. Where are you demanding it? What relevant action are you taking? Or are you just shooting your mouth off here?

Clearly you and I disagree to some extent on what should be done vis a vis security. But if you're so vehemently against the current program, then do something about it, don't just run your yap.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Because I'm paying for it and potentially harassed by it! If it was a rare, isolated incident, I'd be ok with few details being released. These clowns have been getting jerked around so much and responded so unintelligently to so many false alarms that I now demand ACCOUNTIBILITY, something that is severely lacking in our nation's "security" obsession. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif
</font>

Demand all you want, but the fact of the matter is that your morbid curiosity does not outweigh national security concerns. Your having to endure a little "harassment" is a small price to pay for the security, welfare and safety of myself, my family and thousands of other innocent, law-abiding citizens.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Marco Polo:


SHE Bomber - a new angle
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_object id=13776147_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-SHE-BOMBER-name_page.html (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13776147_method=full_siteid=50143 _headline=-SHE-BOMBER-name_page.html)


[This message has been edited by Marco Polo (edited Jan 04, 2004).]</font>


Well, then. shouldn't Gauleiter Ridge ban all females from flying aboard commercial aircraft?

I mean, if the Pentagon can kick out the gays...

It's just too risky for us to let those with larger body cavities to fly. Why most females have wombs too!

Think of the Children!

Frauen und Fraulines AUS!