Security Personnel

[Espada III]

For those of you who think it is reasonable for airports to employ security personnel originating from Middle East/Africa/Asian countries with mainly Muslim populations, on the grounds that they are all 'checked' may I bring to your attention the 'checked' US Army Psychiatrist who has just shot 13 of his own countrymen.

I am never happy about such people security checking air passengers (although I make no comment at the airport), as frankly they are a far bigger risk than the passengers they seek to check.

[Skipness One Echo]

As a young patronising black girl looked down her nose at me last week, she said "It's ALL about respect and diversity". I was in a public sector office and she had taken exception to my remark that "you don't sign a date" when me being me I had done as instructed she said "sign there and there" and signed over the date instead of signing and dating. Silly me for not paying attention but I was immediately lectured to and spoken to like a naughty boy for expressing disquiet, no swearing, simply my tone of voice was not respectful enough to her.

That's the world we're in here in Gordon Brown's bankrupt Britain.
Now imagine how much things have to change to even begin to addressing your point...politicians don't see relaities they see policies, power and continual change.
I avoided a very dangerous path by keeping my big gob shut after she had begun and I sat and allowed her to lecture me, something I would NOT have allowed most people to do, certainly in public. Had I challenged her, there is no doubt who would have won.

Like airport security, they're not in the real world alas but the world of targets, objectives and policies.

[MathFox]

Why would the BAA employ (Northern-) Irish people, people of Irish descent and/or people with family living in Northern Ireland; they could have been in contact with either the IRA or one of their protestant terrorist opponents?

Just twisted your argument... :}

BTW, who says that a "true Englishman" will be incorruptible or prone to seduction by some bad friends?

[Final 3 Greens]

Mathfox

If you look at the track record of aircraft incidents

1 - TWA 840 (1969)

2 - Dawson's Field

3 - TWA 840 (1986)

4 - 9/11

5 - Richard Reid (shoe bomber)

6 - Glasgow Airport

Then he can make his argument on the basis of facts. I am not aware of Irish terrorists ever taking action against aircraft, per the incidents cited above, so your hypothesis is disproven by historical record.

I work regularly in the middle east and have many friends who are sunni moslem, some of the best people I have had the privilege to meet.

But it is difficult to counter Espada's logic, especially in the light of recent terrible events.

[racedo]

Then he can make his argument on the basis of facts. I am not aware of Irish terrorists ever taking action against aircraft, per the incidents cited above, so your hypothesis is disproven by historical record.

Depends on whether you include sending Mortar bombs into Heathrow airport as targeting aircraft.

[MathFox]

In how many of the events you mentioned were there accomplices under airport (security) personnel that allowed the attack? Is Espada pointing in a totally wrong direction?

I'ld like to see security organized such that one bad apple (regardless of colour or religion) does not get an opportunity to corrupt security. Yes, the last wave of plane-related terrorism was done by "Muslims", but I recall a wave of left-wing Germans hijacking planes when I was younger.
Blaming all Muslims for what some crazy extremists do is dumb. And only defending against Muslims is defending against the attacks from the past, where future attacks can come from a totally different group. (The Oklahoma bomber was "white", latest hijacking I heard about was a Mexican priest.)

[Skipness One Echo]

The IRA, twisted as they were had some rules. Even at the height of the troubles, aircraft weren't really a target as the number of non Brits was likely to be high.

The mortar bombs were aimed at the runway and intended to cause chaos.....being Heathrow it's a wonder anyone noticed the difference.

( Would a gag about hounslow being a war zone most days be funny? Perhaps not.... )

[Espada III]

The problem is that the Irish did not become radicalised and the vast majority of Irish on both sides did not want become invovled in violence.

In the current era we have religious preachers encouraging Jihad against anyone who is not Moslem. We don't know who is going to be persuaded to act against the interests of the public, but rest assured (ha!), it will happen.

[MathFox]

My view (from "the continent") is that 99% of the Muslims in my neighbourhood is mostly interested in raising a family, having both ends meet and living a life. The proportion of extremists among Muslims is about as big as the proportion of football hooligans among the general population. I am sure that one can increase the amount of disgruntlement in any group by consistently discriminating against them; government oppression is a great way to induce violence.

When you look at the active terrorism: most is directed at "Western" military presence in the Middle East. The Taliban sees US and British troops in Afghanistan as foreign occupation. (There would be far less Muslim terrorism if Bush and Blair had not sent troops in.)
The way to prevent people slipping into terrorism is integrating them in society. Open a dialogue with the moderates and show them respect. I won't object to sending out some extremist preachers; but please keep the moderates! Stay in touch with them and give Islam a place in your society.

[IJM]

Going back to Skipness' post early in this thread, "It's ALL about respect and diversity" was an unbelievable thing for the staff member to say in the circumstances described. Skipness - you did well not to rise to the bait, many people would find it difficult not to respond.

Mind you, she must have been learning up on her "buzzwords" (or "buzzphrases"!). There are some crackers out there.

[Final 3 Greens]

Mathfox

Blaming all Muslims for what some crazy extremists do is dumb.

With all respect, I don't see that Espada is 'blaming all muslims', what he is saying that he is uncomfortable with security checking by people of a faith whose extremists have caused a number of terrorist incidents.

Whether one agrees with Espada or not, one cannot argue with the logic of this thinking.

One major airline will not allow unaccompanied minors to sit next to single menon flights - does this mean that they think all men are unfit to sit next to kids?

No, it is a probability based decision based on experience.

I have a lot of moslem friends, but I totally understand Espada's thinking.

[joniveson]

Whether one agrees with Espada or not, one cannot argue with the logic of this thinking.

Logic? Can't quite see the logic here. The original poster is implying that no member of the Muslim faith can be trusted to do a job in airport security. This is prejudice pure and simple. The recent incident on the US base has nothing whatsoever to do with civil aviation and has to do with an individual who has gone seriously off the rails.

Presumably those of you who agree with the original post would, by the same 'logic', believe that no one of Irish descent should be employed in Manchester shopping centres and that no one from the Basque region should ever be employed in the Spanish tourist industry.

To blame an entire religion for the actions of terrorists is wrong. Recent terrorist attacks against the aviation industry have been carried out by Muslims, that is not being denied, but that does not in any way make someone a terrorist because they are a muslim.

[AC3854]

Hey Espada - so who should the aiports at Dubai, Muscat, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain etc employ? From my observations probably quite a few Moslems.

Just a thought.

[strake]

I am never happy about such people security checking air passengers (although I make no comment at the airport), as frankly they are a far bigger risk than the passengers they seek to check.

As F3G would (normally) ask, please advise your evidence source for "such people" ie Middle East/African/Asian airport security personnel, being a far bigger risk than those they check.

[Final 3 Greens]

Strake

Quite right, I would normally ask for supporting evidence, but in this case Espada III...

1- cites the matter of the US Army officer who allegedly shot 13 people dead and where the facts would appear to be in the public domain

2- expresses a personal opinion that he is uncomfortable with these screeners, which does not require evidence to back it up, since it is his view and whilst the majority of us may not share it, nonetheless it is his opinion

[strake]

F3G,

I do understand your point about the first part of the statement made and I am probably drifting the thread :uhoh:

OP said:

I am never happy about such people security checking air passengers (although I make no comment at the airport), as frankly they are a far bigger risk than the passengers they seek to check.

If the statement said: "I am never happy about these people checking me as frankly I think they are a far bigger risk than I am" that in itself would be sweeping but at least it would be personal to the OP's view and of course, if that is what he thinks, then I agree with you even though I do not agree with the post.

[TightSlot]

I don't like this thread. and I especially don't like where it is almost inevitably headed. Enjoy while it lasts guys, because the moment it morphs into the next phase, it is either JB or deletion.

Tick, Tick, Tick...

[strake]

From my humble point of view, it's not even worthy of JB...

[Final 3 Greens]

Strake

I had implied the words you added, I agree with your very last comment.

[eastconsbrook]

I dont think anything could be 100% safe as a way of Security
In Belfast airports there are a lot of people who work in security ( AIRPORTS OR OTHER) who might have a less than true security check or not totaly traceable for 10 years but who is to say a person that has worked in security for years all through the troubles here defenfing the good honest public might hear a voice in their head from a god or other notable figue and snap.
We have to trust not panic!
After 9 / 11 I remember an instance a local man complained about a Muslim familty and a man wearing a turban on a flight, " They coud have killed us all was the cry all over the teminal from him
The family were so embarased as they were local as well , Belfast accents and all , So dont judge a book from a book review!! :ugh:

[Donalk]

I find the sentiments expressed by the OP to be offensive. Ethnocentric comments like this should not be tolerated on this or any other public forum, and I am surprised that the thread continues to exist.

Whether or not Espada should be allowed to use this forum to make racial slurs, because it is his/her opinion, is academic. The fact remains that to brand all security personnel of certain race(s) as a security risk is just plain wrong, is without foundation, and smacks of an attempt to incite racial conflict.

[Skipness One Echo]

Donalk that's taking it a little far. I tend to think of the sensible profiling by El-Al which is deemed necesary for reasons we are afraid to discuss in the UK for fear of someone screaming "RACIST!" just like you just did right there.

Given the admission this week that dangersous and non checked people have been given UK Residency on Home Office advice, I guess there is nothing to prevent them going to work for airport security. The system is not remotely joined up and there is, I regret, a danger of something happening right under our noses.

[Donalk]

You have introduced a level of reason to this thread skipness. However my issue is with the OP whose language is clearly defamatory. Sweeping comments like 'such people' has failed to distinguish between the overwhelming majority of people from all ethnic backgrounds who are law abiding citizens and those who may harbour extreme views.

Espada has demonstrated a dangerously myopic view and has dismissed all those of a certain ethnicity as 'a bigger risk than the passengers they seek to check'.

This is wrong on so many levels. Security is a global concern and we are cursed to suffer increased levels of personal intrusion and curtailment of previous priviledges in the common good.

Like it or not this is unlikely to change in the near future.................and yes I do regard the OP's original comments as racist.

[Final 3 Greens]

Donalk

I think you are incorrect to use the term racist, since Espada is more concerned by the activities of diverse people who share a religion (athough regarding islam as a single religion is simplistic IMHO), not by a race.

Taking on board Tightslot's comments, I really do not want to write any more.

[Katamarino]

Some religious groups are more of a threat than others, based purely on past history, and currently stated aims of some fundamental groups. We can argue how useful past statistics are in predicting future behaviour, but the point still stands.

This is fact - some people are scared of facts that don't strike them as PC, but it doesn't make them any less true.

It is also all relative, and there are factors other than religion that greatly outweigh it in terms of added risk (a history of odd trips to Pakistan, for example). The added risk over another religious group, across the population at large, is without doubt so tiny as to be completely irrelevant to the travelling public.

Some airlines refuse to seat men next to unaccompanied minors, because there is a greater chance that they are sex offenders. The chance is still absurdly tiny, but it seems that the PC crowd don't get up in arms about it because it isn't a currently fashionable thing to moan about, like race and religion are.

[MathFox]

Back to the US Army psychiatrist: there were signals that this person was functioning badly and suffering from stress; but the organisation did not do anything about it. (BTW, what was race and religion of the Florida shooter, same day?)

Back to the security checkpoint. We have background checked security checkers, both the Muslim and the Anglican will have lived most of their life in Britain and "enjoyed" British education. Who of the two will be a bigger risk for the safety of my flight? (The Anglican can have a hangover...)

And when I am scanning my fellow passengers, I do see a group of drunk youth as the most likely threat to a smooth flight. Muslims don't drink.