getting scary now ..............

[paulyoung666]

just seen this on sky


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...117109,00.html


i am not normally a scared person but this is getting worse by the day

[homealone]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

just seen this on sky


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...117109,00.html


i am not normally a scared person but this is getting worse by the day

What I find scarey is that anyone could think that attempting a terrorist act using a plane would achieve any more than the potential deaths of all on board & anyone the plane hits on the ground. I can't think of one act of terrorism that has furthered the cause of the perpetrators, it only serves to further polarise the views of both sides.

[darkangel]

as I've said before these measures are all about threat reduction and prevention, providing the correct training procedures and equipment are used I've no problem with this, for many years airlines have been using air marshals el-AL have had much success with airline security in recent years with these type of measures

[darkangel]

Originally Posted by homealone

What I find scarey is that anyone could think that attempting a terrorist act using a plane would achieve any more than the potential deaths of all on board & anyone the plane hits on the ground. I can't think of one act of terrorism that has furthered the cause of the perpetrators, it only serves to further polarise the views of both sides.

hijackings for many years have beem used to publicise causes we find only too convenient to forget about, standard government procedures is to dehumanise these people as mad bombers etc but thats not necessarily the case although as recent event have shown there are exceptions to this rule.

[TigaSefi]

I seen this kind of air marshal tactic for years since I travel to Israel frequently. It won't be anything new for me and it probably a good idea. Question is, how do u stop a terrorist detonating himself on a plane in time ?

[homealone]

Originally Posted by darkangel

hijackings for many years have beem used to publicise causes we find only too convenient to forget about, standard government procedures is to dehumanise these people as mad bombers etc but thats not necessarily the case although as recent event have shown there are exceptions to this rule.

fair point about the publicity, but I get the impression that the aims, lately, seem more about destroying as many 'Western' lives as possible, rather than furthering a cause - and then using that as propaganda to recruit more 'martyrs'.

[downquark1]

I just hope this isn't a some scare tatic to let them invade another country next year.

[homealone]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I just hope this isn't a some scare tatic to let them invade another country next year.

my impression is that they have received intelligence that an exploit is being planned & this move is a compromise to allow the airlines to continue to operate.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by TigaSefi

I seen this kind of air marshal tactic for years since I travel to Israel frequently. It won't be anything new for me and it probably a good idea. Question is, how do u stop a terrorist detonating himself on a plane in time ?

stop him/her getting on the plane in the first place , its all very good having sky marshalls but if the basics are not done on the ground then there is little if any point in having them on the plane , i dont fly very often but i would gladly wait another hour or whatever to be sure that there was nobody on the flight carrying explosives or other weapons


@ homealone , i wonder if this is part of the same thing


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...960910,00.html

[peachey]

Originally Posted by homealone

fair point about the publicity, but I get the impression that the aims, lately, seem more about destroying as many 'Western' lives as possible, rather than furthering a cause - and then using that as propaganda to recruit more 'martyrs'.

I was listening to some guy on the radio
and his answer to suicide bombings

he said it was totally against religious ideas to commit suicide.


he went on to say that it was acceptable to die as a martyr knowing certain death by the hands of the 'enemy'

myself I found that a bit hard to justify when, say, the 'enemy' consisted of a number of guys sitting in a cafe armed with, at most deadly, an apricot slice

[Marge]

When I flew to New York last year the security at Manchester Airport was incredible. Everyone was body searched and our hand luggage was checked about 5 times, I have to say I felt safer knowing such checks were in place. American immigration is a bad experience though, think those people on the desks are ex-Gestapo

[homealone]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

stop him/her getting on the plane in the first place , its all very good having sky marshalls but if the basics are not done on the ground then there is little if any point in having them on the plane , i dont fly very often but i would gladly wait another hour or whatever to be sure that there was nobody on the flight carrying explosives or other weapons


@ homealone , i wonder if this is part of the same thing


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...960910,00.html

well said Paul - I totally agree they should continue to be vigilant on the ground.

Re: the Saudi plot that was foiled - personally I think it is, at least a symptom, that 'something is up'.

I think increased airport security is inevitable - but it is scarey seeing armed police at the airports. The first experience I had was landing at Oslo after a flight from Amsterdam & having our hand luggage searched for drugs by a sniffer dog & a policeman armed with a machine pistol.

[Xaccers]

Bloke from the Pilots' union just now made an interesting point.
They won't be on all trans atlantic flights, just "random" ones.
He didn't trust the "random" factor suggesting that they would actually be deployed when intelligence shows something might happen on a flight and claim they were randomly put on that flight.
Pilots would rather be told that there might be something happening on the flight and so choose not to take off in the first place.

[homealone]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Bloke from the Pilots' union just now made an interesting point.
They won't be on all trans atlantic flights, just "random" ones.
He didn't trust the "random" factor suggesting that they would actually be deployed when intelligence shows something might happen on a flight and claim they were randomly put on that flight.
Pilots would rather be told that there might be something happening on the flight and so choose not to take off in the first place.

To me that makes it 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', i.e. in that scenario a terrorist organisation could continually leak false information and completely disrupt an already shakey airline industry.

On the other hand I agree that if I was a passenger on a plane that was under suspicion of a potential attack I would rather not fly than take the risk that the 'Air Marshall' would be able to contain the situation.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by homealone

To me that makes it 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', i.e. in that scenario a terrorist organisation could continually leak false information and completely disrupt an already shakey airline industry.

On the other hand I agree that if I was a passenger on a plane that was under suspicion of a potential attack I would rather not fly than take the risk that the 'Air Marshall' would be able to contain the situation.

i just cant see how a ' sky marshall ' could contain a situation , any weapon used would have to not penetrate a person or there would be a risk of puncturing the skin of the aircraft , and unless it was a fatal shot there would be a chance that the terroist could detonate a bomb if they were carrying one