My Real Concern about Terrorism

[Angle of Attack]

Before I start speaking lets forget all politics, I am speaking truthfully and completely in a new topic anyone has talked about since the so called "terrorists" became an issue. I have a problem with security, thats clear if you read my previous posts, and we can debate it all we like. But my question is "Just how safe are we?"

Terrorists are patient, you just have to look at the delay between the first bombing of the World Trade Centre and the next succesful destruction of it around 10 years later.

We can debate security all we like, but let's face it, we can not stop a terrrorist attack. If we are talking about an Aviation security threat lets talk the truth.. It is all show, why not learn to fly, get your CPL and gain employment as an Airline Pilot in a major Airline?

What is in place to stop someone gaining there license and going through the hoops ( just like the rest of us) , gaining employment in any major Airline.. then being a "Sleeper" and waiting for a major massive co-ordinated attack on multiple targets throughouts the world?

Unfortunatley nothing! at the moment...

I think we really need to discuss the real issues (minus politicians) because we have already realised they dont have realistic answers...

Let's have a proper debate on what we can do to remedy this situation...

[Jet_A_Knight]

You can't separate this issue from politics.

[CoolCat]

For now, I think there is no real way of being able to detect such persons or control the actions of the pilot(s) once they're airborne.

What airlines COULD do is install some kind of monitoring system and have security officers on board the plane to ensure everything goes smoothly or have a computer system lock the controls and fly the aircraft out of harms way while someone on the ground remotely controls and lands it... I suppose we're getting a bit too carried away there, but I think it'd be possible through today's technology.
There is no initiative for such a technology at the moment as nobody believes that terrorists would amass worldwide as airline pilots and wage havoc. This is because it's simply very much unlikely to occur when you consider the time, money and educational requirements of becoming an airline pilot. I think terrorists would find such a plan far less feasible than something like building a nuclear weapon and detonating it in our backyard, which is just as unlikely.

[bushy]

There was once a young man in Australia, who went to a flying school and learned to fly. I believe he started from scratch, and did his ppl, and cpl at the same flying school. He then went to Alice Springs and got a job with Connair. At that time Connair did not hire pilots, they hired "traffic officers" who usually progressed to become pilots. A smart idea. However this young man did not impress, and soon ended up unemployed. He went north I'm not sure where he went,Hall's creek, or somewhere up there. He was unhappy, and wrote some very strange things in his diary. He tried to steal a Queen air, but could not get it started, so he stole a Baron instead. He had planned to be in Alice Springs when all the Connair staff were on a tea break, and would all be in the canteen between the two hangars. He entered the control zone without a clearance, and made only one very unusual radio transmission before crashing the baron into the canteen. Some people were killed, and some injured.

I often wonder if the instructors at the flying school saw anything unusual during the many hours they must have spent with him. It is now obvious that this young man was insane.

[CoolCat]

I often wonder if the instructors at the flying school saw anything unusual during the many hours they must have spent with him. It is now obvious that this young man was insane.

God bushy I was just about to head off to bed and now I read this :uhoh:

anyway, pretty disturbing story. Hope nothing like that ever happens where I'm learning to fly.
I also wonder why this guy had a tough time finding a job.
I thought it was easy to slide into an instructors job after you complete the CPL and instructors rating. Guess I thought wrong :sad:

[Chronic Snoozer]

Before I start speaking lets forget all politics, I am speaking truthfully and completely in a new topic anyone has talked about since the so called "terrorists" became an issue
It became an issue once mass jet transport was invented.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/themes/crime_and_punishment/hijacking/default.stm

[Ultralights]

I dont think we are under that great of threat from the air when it comes to a terrorist attack, as has been seen in the past, the terrorist weapon of choice is a car, van or backpack.
and as for security protecting us from such weapons? well there is none, in my previous life as a courier operator, the amount of access granted to van drivers with a logo on the side is amazing! the premiers department in syd was a regular client, no id, no check nothing, just drive on under the building, same for the International and domestic terminal at YSSY, i had regular deliveries of promotional material to the Sanity record stores, straight under the terminal, in a loaded van, no id, nothing, then carry 4 boxes full of 400 CD to the elevator, and into the "sterile" side of the airport, again, no xray, no id check, not even a glance from the security guards.

sadly in Sydney, it doesn't take much to stop the city. just look at the train breakdown the other night! 1 train, a vast majority of the city is thrown into chaos...

you can bring the entire metro area to a standstill with just 4 cars in a few strategic intersections, and just 2 trains stopped in certain places..

i think, if there will be an attack on Aussie soil it will come from a backpack or vehicle..

[Duff Man]

Agree with Ultralights. The probability of any terrorist attack is extremely small. The consequences of an attack can vary but are usually tiny compared to non-terrorsist threats to humanity.

All the same, terror is involved, so we need to do something! Gotta be able to sleep at night.

In the case of air travel and use of aircraft as weapons the government has a responsibility to do everything reasonable to prevent an associated terrorist attack. IE, pax screening. An organised terrorist group will always find ways around these security mechanisms but they are required nonetheless. You'd assume that domestic intelligence agencies post Sep 11 have a new focus on pilots from trainee to airline captain. The spooks are the primary line of defence against future terrorist attacks.

Cynics may (self included) doubt the validity of recent arrests of terrorst suspects in Australia and the UK, but this is evidence of an active intelligence service. All we can do is hope their net is cast wide.

[divingduck]

Bushy, the same thing happened in bankstown in the early 80s.
It was wehen the tobagos had just arrived.

One young lad, was washed out of his course, broke into the hanger and took off in the aircraft...BXC if memory serves. He then aimed it at the hanger housing the rest of the fleet (about 10 I think) and crashed just short, taking out a number of aircraft along the way, including the Norman Gunston DC3.

Now back to the topic, I think the next attack will be in NY harbour, with a LPG tanker with an explosive device on it.

a mate in the industry reckons that a fair sized tanker will take out most of Manhatten and up to about 4-5km inland. It would make the Sep 11 attacks look like a picnic. sobering thought.

[Jenna Talia]

divingduck,

Right on all counts, except for the reason. The guy did the deed following a heated arguement with his girlfriend.

[CoolCat]

What I am trying to establish is, getting a single person to become an airline pilot is a fairly big venture. So, getting tens to hundreds of people to do so, is obviously going to be a far greater task and one that wouldn't seem feasible to anyone.

If there is ever to be terrorist pilots, there should have already been at least one incident during the past decades. Because there hasn't, I don't believe this will ever be a serious problem. Perhaps it will be in the future when the number of airlines and pilots, quadruples. If it does ever happen, the industry will simply introduce stricter protocols to make sure the right people are employed and such incidents don't occur.

At the moment I think it's a lot more likely that a group of terrorists would get their hands on a WMD than an ATPL and a 747.

[bushy]

I read a report of a crash of a middle easterv airline where it was concluded by the enquiry that the co-pilot deliberately caused the aircraft to dive into the sea.

[remoak]

The reason that politicians have no realistic answers is that there ARE NO REALISTIC ANSWERS.

You simply cannot prevent 9/11 attacks using "sleeper" pilots... although I think the risk is extremely small. The extremists aren't (completely) stupid, they know that the next big attack will be most successful if it uses a new delivery technique... an LPG tanker in a (relatively) confined space sounds about right.

They must laugh at us, implementing all this mindless security after the deed is done. In fact, you have to wonder if their real plan is to cause as much disruption as possible - that would be self-inflicted disruption.

If you want to stop them, you need to take a lesson from the country that lives with this threat every day - that would be Israel. In particular, take a lesson from El Al, who have successfully employed profiling for years, and don't seem to be victims of terrorism very often...

[Keg]

In fact, you have to wonder if their real plan is to cause as much disruption as possible - that would be self-inflicted disruption.

I reckon that OBL has shares in every security company in the world and is making trillions at the moment on the knee jerk reaction of everyone! As you say, the horse has bolted to a large degree. That's not to say that there ain't other horses that we should stop from getting out! :eek:

[Ultralights]

quite ironic really, Bin Laden making a killing on the worlds stockmarkets, buy trying his best to destroy the words stockmarkets

[Buster Hyman]

Its not called terrorism for nothing.

Billions are spent on appeasing the punters who have trouble sleeping at night for what? To ease their terror. Most of us know a security breach waiting to happen at various locations around the country. We can report them, but how sure are we that the Govt. of the day has the funds or the inkling to do anything about it? We cannot be sure.

If we could be 100% certain that each & every attack will come from commercial jets, then lets lock those airports down tight. We can install Patriots or Rapiers around startegic areas & ensure that any aircraft out of normal control is targeted. Obviously, we can't. Equally obvious is that we are unable to anticipate all the schemes being developed by these individuals.

So, on our checklist we've (a) put on a good show of beefing security for the punters, (b) made a few arrests and maximised the potential if they weren't caught and (c) sent our finest across the globe chasing the masterminds. Excellent. Calm the punters, reduce the terror.

On the checklist that actually fixes the problem, we have a long way to go. That is a prickly one and I most certainly do not have a definitive answer, although I've got some idea...but...I think politics would stray back into the thread.

Reducing the terror is all we can realistically aim for at the moment. I recall seeing an interview with someone after the London bombings and was impressed with their summation. The chap said that they were wasting their time bombing London; "We've been through years of that with the IRA" (or words to that affect) If we can show resolve & recover our normal lives as best we can after such events, we go a long way to defeating their purpose. If we can express our anger, loss and determination to overcome, then the terror begins to diminish & their power weakens.

[B772]

Bushy, you are so correct. It occured in 1977 and one of the victims was Roger Connellan, son of Eddie founder of Connair. After the accident Eddie was a broken man and not long after he sold the airline to East West.

I spent a lot of time on the 'centre run' both as a F/O and in later years as a Captain. Ansett had F27 crew based in ASP at one stage and I knew some of our staff well and some of the aviation characters in the area.

BTW. The Ansett F27 hijack with Capt Ralph Young and F/O Wally Gowans at ASP on Melbourne Cup Day 1972 that resulted in the hijackers death is still a mystery in that the hijacker has not been identified. Last I heard he was still on ice at ASP.

[pakeha-boy]

Quote.....Terrorists are patient, you just have to look at the delay between the first bombing of the World Trade Centre and the next succesful destruction of it around 10 years later.

....thats why its nice to have a 40mm in the cockpit(here we go again:mad: )

[Captain Sand Dune]

middle easterv airline where it was concluded by the enquiry that the co-pilot deliberately caused the aircraft to dive into the sea.
EgyptAir, wasn't it? I reckon the 737 near Singapore was a similar occurrence.

[YesTAM]

Dear Oh Dear! At least we haven't got into technical anti terror suggestions yet.

First of all it is necessary to distinguish between insanity and organised terrorism. Very few of us are worried about the former.

As for terrorism, the obvious cure is to deal with and eliminate the causes of terrorism in the first place, starting by giving the Israelis a good thumping and getting them to make peace with the Palestinians (or else).

That removes about half the rationale for terrorism directed against the west.

The other cause is the encroachment of western culture into the middle east - its weakening Islam and the Fundamentalists led by Bin Laden types are kicking back. The obvious answer to that problem is to push western influence into the middle east even faster. We know how to do this, its how we won the cold war.

But are we doing either of these things? Nope, we are simply creating more and more terrorists, witness the cells uncovered in Australia.

As for a pilot going through his training and then deciding to jihad a 747, I guess its possible, but ASIO are supposed to be looking at all of us very closely.:ok:

[pakeha-boy]

Capt SD...yeah mate believe you are right on the Egypt Air job.....the NTSB were very scathing of what happened in their preliminary reports,,....but because of not wanting to upset the "political balance" between the two countries....they bloody sugar coated it:mad: ...not sure about the other....but aircraft just dont fall out of the sky.....


Quote...The other cause is the encroachment of western culture into the middle east ..........

That may be true,but it certainly is not of the violent nature thats these Pr@#ks take it to....ATM ,but agree with your post...PB

[Buster Hyman]

Wasn't the Silkair one a bankrupt divorcee? Or was that sugar coating as well?:confused:

[WynSock]

Start by giving the Israelis a good thumping

I agree, what the hell are we doing supporting those trigger-happy twits? I reckon the arabs are like angry ants, stand on the nest and they will bite.

The west should go back to defending its own soil. We should do the same.

[remoak]

starting by giving the Israelis a good thumping and getting them to make peace with the Palestinians (or else).

That removes about half the rationale for terrorism directed against the west.

Since virtually all Arab nations have only one stated aim in relation to Israel - that it cease to exist - the course of action you suggest will never happen.

Whatever the rights or wrongs, Israel has had it's back to the wall since it came into existence. They are hardly likely to put a gun to their head at this stage.

You have to realise that, when you are dealing with Arab terrorists, you are not dealing with rational people. They hate the West. Most of them don't know why they hate the West, only that the Mullahs say they should, so they do. Add into the mix an instant passport to heaven should they sacrifice themselves in an act of terrorism, and the promise of 99 virgins just for them as soon as they are blown to pieces, and you have a group of people who WANT to die, and take as many infidels with them as possible. That is the reason they rarely use bullets - not enough death and destruction.

I'm not particularly pro-Israel, but when it comes to dealing with terrorists, they have a pretty good handle on things.

Also, I don't agree that Islam is weakening under Western commercial influence. It is, in fact, spreading quite rapidly in the Third World. Even in NZ, mosques are springing up and local Muslims are on a charm offensive, trying to tell us how peaceful Islam is.

Yeah, right...

[pakeha-boy]

Also, I don't agree that Islam is weakening under Western commercial influence. It is, in fact, spreading quite rapidly in the Third World. Even in NZ, mosques are springing up and local Muslims are on a charm offensive, trying to tell us how peaceful Islam is.

Yeah, right...

DITTO:ok: .......mate....DITTO.:ok: .....

[LME-400]

Bushy, you are so correct. It occured in 1977 and one of the victims was Roger Connellan, son of Eddie founder of Connair. After the accident Eddie was a broken man and not long after he sold the airline to East West.http://www.bushmag.com.au/History/The%20Silent%20Grief%20of%20Alice%20Springs.htm

[oicur12]

There is no clearly defined and accepted definition of terrorism.

Citizens of a sovreign state that attempt to repell an invading force from another sovereign state are not terrorists.

The majority of terrorist attacks involving aviation do not involve muslims.

[Track Coastal]

You've been sucked in by the Propaganda.

Since the 2nd Intafada (29/9/2000):

3,968 Palestinians (including 814 minors) have been killed by the IDF in the Occupied Territories.
469 Israeli civilians (including 80 minors) have been killed by Palestinians in Israel.
This is a ratio of over 8:1.

The Arab Palestinian people/race have been oppressed and living as 2nd tier non-citizens since 1948. Israel has every right to exist but they should just treat the indigeneous folk a little better.

Pulling all settlments and troops completely back to its pre-1967 borders (The Green Line) and offering back East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital is good start (UN resolution 242).

Making Israeli funding (to the tunes of 10s of billions annually) and US backed defence conditional on their human rights behaviour should sort it out.

When it comes to 'why' [the muslim peoples are 'pissed' off] part of 'why are their terrorists' question - the path leads to Tel Aviv's policies and the US backing of such policies (and therefore Australia's) via the influence of AIPAC (www.aipac.org (http://www.aipac.org)).

Here is the Israeli site of B'Tselem:
http://www.btselem.org/English/

Here is the Aussie site of:
http://www.jao.org.au/

[pakeha-boy]

QUOTE....there is no clearly defined and accepted definition of terrorism

OICUR12......ok mate......I dont disagree with your statement....let me ask you this...

When you take an aircraft by force,kill the pilots,crew and the passengers....what do you call that/it.??........just curious:confused: PB

[oicur12]

Decide for yourself whether to believe this, but according to a new report there were only 16 cases of international terrorism in the Middle East last year.

That is the lowest number for any region in the world apart from North America (where there were none at all). Europe had 30 cases - almost twice as many as the Middle East - and Latin America came top with 193.

The figures come from the US state department's annual review of global terrorism, which has just been published on the internet. Worldwide, the report says confidently, "there were 423 international terrorist attacks in 2000, an increase of 8% from the 392 attacks recorded during 1999".

No doubt a lot of painstaking effort went into counting them, but the statistics are fundamentally meaningless because, as the report points out, "no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance".

That is an understatement. While most people agree that terrorism exists, few can agree on what it is. A recent book discussing attempts by the UN and other international bodies to define terrorism runs to three volumes and 1,866 pages without reaching any firm conclusion.

Using the definition preferred by the state department, terrorism is: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

"International" terrorism - the subject of the American report - is defined as "terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country".

The key point about terrorism, on which almost everyone agrees, is that it's politically motivated. This is what distinguishes it from, say, murder or football hooliganism. But this also causes a problem for those who compile statistics because the motive is not always clear - especially if no one has claimed responsibility.

So the American report states - correctly - that there were no confirmed terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia last year. There were, nevertheless, three unexplained bombings and one shooting incident, all directed against foreigners.

Another essential ingredient (you might think) is that terrorism is calculated to terrorise the public or a particular section of it. The American definition does not mention spreading terror at all, because that would exclude attacks against property. It is, after all, impossible to frighten an inanimate object.

Among last year's attacks, 152 were directed against a pipeline in Colombia which is owned by multinational oil companies. Such attacks are of concern to the United States and so a definition is required which allows them to be counted.

For those who accept that terrorism is about terrorising people, other questions arise. Does it include threats, as well as actual violence? A few years ago, for example, the Islamic Army in Yemen warned foreigners to leave the country if they valued their lives but did not actually carry out its threat.

More recently, a group of Israeli peace activists were arrested for driving around in a loudspeaker van, announcing a curfew of the kind that is imposed on Palestinians. Terrifying for any Israelis who believed it, but was it terrorism?

Another characteristic of terrorism, according to some people, is that targets must be random - the intention being to make everyone fear they might be the next victim. Some of the Hamas suicide bombings appear to follow this principle but when attacks are aimed at predictable targets (such as the military) they are less likely to terrorise the public at large.

Definitions usually try to distinguish between terrorism and warfare. In general this means that attacks on soldiers are warfare and those against civilians are terrorism, but the dividing lines quickly become blurred.

The state department regards attacks against "noncombatant* targets" as terrorism. But follow the asterisk to the small print and you find that "noncombatants" includes both civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or off duty at the time. Several examples are given, such as the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin, which killed two servicemen.

The most lethal bombing in the Middle East last year was the suicide attack on USS Cole in Aden harbour which killed 17 American sailors and injured 39 more.

As the ship was armed and its crew on duty at the time, why is this classified as terrorism? Look again at the small print, which adds: "We also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases."

A similar question arises with Palestinian attacks on quasi-military targets such as Israeli settlements. Many settlers are armed (with weapons supplied by the army) and the settlements themselves - though they contain civilians - might be considered military targets because they are there to consolidate a military occupation.

If, under the state department rules, Palestinian mortar attacks on settlements count as terrorism, it would be reasonable to expect Israeli rocket attacks on Palestinian communities to be treated in the same way - but they are not. In the American definition, terrorism can never be inflicted by a state.

Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is classified as a human rights issue (for which the Israelis get a rap over the knuckles) in a separate state department report.

Denying that states can commit terrorism is generally useful, because it gets the US and its allies off the hook in a variety of situations. The disadvantage is that it might also get hostile states off the hook - which is why there has to be a list of states that are said to "sponsor" terrorism while not actually committing it themselves.

Interestingly, the American definition of terrorism is a reversal of the word's original meaning, given in the Oxford English Dictionary as "government by intimidation". Today it usually refers to intimidation of governments.

The first recorded use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" was in 1795, relating to the Reign of Terror instituted by the French government. Of course, the Jacobins, who led the government at the time, were also revolutionaries and gradually "terrorism" came to be applied to violent revolutionary activity in general. But the use of "terrorist" in an anti-government sense is not recorded until 1866 (referring to Ireland) and 1883 (referring to Russia).

In the absence of an agreed meaning, making laws against terrorism is especially difficult. The latest British anti-terrorism law gets round the problem by listing 21 international terrorist organisations by name. Membership of these is illegal in the UK.

There are six Islamic groups, four anti-Israel groups, eight separatist groups and three opposition groups. The list includes Hizbullah, which though armed, is a legal political party in Lebanon, with elected members of parliament.

Among the separatist groups, the Kurdistan Workers Party - active in Turkey -is banned, but not the KDP or PUK, which are Kurdish organisations active in Iraq. Among opposition groups, the Iranian People's Mujahedeen is banned, but not its Iraqi equivalent, the INC, which happens to be financed by the United States.

Issuing such a list does at least highlight the anomalies and inconsistencies behind anti-terrorism laws. It also points towards a simpler - and perhaps more honest - definition: terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of.

[pakeha-boy]

Definitions usually try to distinguish between terrorism and warfare. In general this means that attacks on soldiers are warfare and those against civilians are terrorism, but the dividing lines quickly become blurred.

Oicur12....thanks for the reply,actually enjoyed reading it....the dividing lines for me dont become blurred,are are actually fairly well spelt out....

A personal opinion/defnition for sure ,but 9/11 for me was pure terrorism... but your points I agree are valid,but there is a huge difference between harassement,holigans and killing(random civillians).............PB

[remoak]

oicur12

Nice bit of cut and paste. Your information is clearly very old. You say:

The most lethal bombing in the Middle East last year was the suicide attack on USS Cole in Aden harbour which killed 17 American sailors and injured 39 more.


...except that the bombing of the USS Cole happened in 2000, which is seven years ago.

Definitions of terrorism are beside the point. We all know what it is. All you are really doing is obfuscating the issue. Attacks on oil pipelines are hardly in the same category as suicide bombings

If you use the State Department definition, your figures regarding terrorist attacks are also incorrect. You say that there were no terrorist attacks in the US last year, but that is not true - there were two in the US last year (both SUV attacks on pedestrians, one by an Afghan, one by an Iranian - both politically motivated).

Your final definition is simplistic in the extreme, and has no meaning at all in the real world.

[oicur12]

Remoak,

Yes, it was a cut and paste and yes the document was written 7 years ago.

The point that I was trying to make without wasting my own breath is that words such as terrorism/facism/patriotism etc have been hijacked for political purposes and often no longer resemble thier original meaning.

The article illustrates that greater minds than you and I in no way agree as to the correct definition of the word "terrorism" so having a tet e tet here on pprune will not resolve the dispute.

Sep 11 probably was terrorism although it is a rather soft example. The carpet bombing of Cambodia probably was terrorism too which is why the US Government is becoming very savvy at redefining such descriptions.

The events of sep 11 more closely resemble a crime but treating it as such would have opened up a pandoras box of similar accusations leveled at the coalition of the willing and its member states.

[remoak]

oicur12

Yes well I'd have to agree with you 100% on that last post.

I guess my point about the last para of your first post, is that when dealing with these people (the ones that blow themselves up in buses and so forth), you can't really afford to play by a set of PC rules. They want to kill you, in as vicious a way as is possible, and I'm afraid that you simply can't treat them as ordinary law-breakers. In this respect, the Israelis worked out long ago that being nice doesn't work, and that "an eye for an eye" is the only option when dealing with Arab terrorists. In so doing, they become virtually indistinguishable from their attackers in many ways, but that is the price you pay.

I lived in Northern Ireland for a time at the height of the Troubles (modern era), and the single most defining characteristic of that conflict, is that the protagonists simply wanted to hurt each other. Few had any real idea of the origins or politics of the conflict, they just wanted to shoot people. The IRA were running protection rackets all over Belfast, and we had to remove our pilots uniforms before leaving the airport, for fear of being targeted as British naval personnel. People on both sides were routinely knee-capped or killed by rampant gangs, for no other reason than they lived on the wrong side of the Falls Rd or the wrong part of Shankhill.

My point is, that I have no difficulty with the British using extreme techniques to break IRA cells or the Americans doing the same at Quantanamo Bay. I don't call it terrorism because the aim of the exercise is not to kill innocent people, whereas for the people who they are interrogating, that is the only aim.

Cambodia is a whole different issue, though. Hard to defend that.

[bushy]

Look at what happened during WW2 when there was massive bombing of cvilians and cities were destroyed along with the people.
The winners are heroes, and the losers are war criminals.
As Onassis said "the rules are - there are no rules.

[remoak]

Track Coastal

I just noticed that your post was aimed at me.

If I've been sucked in by the propaganda, you have swallowed the Palestinian brochure.

Yes, more Palestinians are dead. Partly because they choose to die, and partly because the Israelis are far better at armed conflict than they are.

If you think that the Israelis are ever going to give up East Jerusalem, you are living on another planet. If you look at the history of the area, you will find that the Palestinians have always been the aggressors, and the Israelis the defenders. It is also rather simplistic to call the Palestinians an "indigenous" people... the area is a melting pot of many different ethnic and political groups. Please define what a "Palestinian" is.

Having said that, it is true that the Israelis have been known to over-react, but it is hardly surprising.

The Americans will always back the Israelis, as they know that the minute they stop, Israel is doomed.

Muslim anger has nothing to do with the policies of tel Aviv, except in a secondary sense. All muslims are, by definition, committed to the destruction of Israel - not because of the treatment of the Palestinians, but for age-old religious reasons that are clearly defined in the Koran. Try starting at Surah 5:9.

You don't find Israelis strapping C4 and ball bearings to their chests and blowing themselves up on Palestinian buses. You don't find them forming terrorist groups to get their point across, and you certainly don't find them hijacking Arab aircraft to make a point.

I am not a Jew or an Israeli, but I have far more sympathy for them than I ever will for the muslim extremists. The likes of Al Qaeda, Hamas etc are savage beyond belief, and have no place in a civilised world.

[cart_elevator]

The likes of Al Qaeda, Hamas etc are savage beyond belief, and have no place in a civilised world.


So what is this civilised worl you talk of? America? - the land of the free, the 'world police'.

In the past ten years in America:

167,514 people were murdered

934,099 people were raped.


And this mob are now [effectively] running our country, and telling everyone else on the planet how to run theirs. What a civilised bunch us 'westerners' are! :mad:

[remoak]

Well no, I wasn't talking about America... but I would take America any day over countries where babies from a different tribal group are chopped up with machetes (many African nations, particularly places like Rwanda), or countries where women are beheaded for any form of sexual impropriety, and men routinely have their limbs publically amputated for minor acts of dishonesty (any Arab nation).

But in any case, your figures look somewhat less impressive when averaged over the ten years you mention, and then expressed as a percentage of the population of the USA. The way that you present them is misleading to say the least.

[lowerlobe]

oicur12... "Sep 11 probably was terrorism although it is a rather soft example"...

PROBABLY...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SOFT EXAMPLE.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Track Coastal]

Yes, more Palestinians are dead. Partly because they choose to die,:rolleyes:
814 minors in the occupied territories chose to die at the hands of the IDF?
and partly because the Israelis are far better at armed conflict than they are.
Its easy to kill a kid with some rocks when you are inside an Abrams M1 battle tank.
The Americans will always back the Israelis, as they know that the minute they stop, Israel is doomed.

Defending and ensuring ones right to exist is one thing, tacitly supporting human rights violations is another.

Terrorist have a serious grievance. Address the grievance (as the UK did in Ulster after recognising in was an endless no-win situation).

But, a constant state of war and popular fear is a good way of establishing and expanding governmental power and control whilst the military industrial complex makes a few more bucks so learn to live with it or lobby/vote appropriately.

[remoak]

814 minors in the occupied territories chose to die at the hands of the IDF?If your minor chooses to attack well-armed Israelis in the sure and certain knowledge that they WILL respond, then yes, absolutely.

And why are these minors so quick to do so? Because they are taught, from a very early age, that to die whilst fighting the infidel is a guaranteed, first-class ticket direct to paradise. Death in the struggle against the infidel is something that virtually all Palestinian children are taught to aspire to.

That is why they willingly give their lives.

And you are whining on about Israeli human rights violations? Get real.

You think that the American support for Israel is about selling arms? That is the most laughably naive comment I have seen for ages.

[Hempy]

If your minor chooses to attack well-armed Israelis in the sure and certain knowledge that they WILL respond, then yes, absolutely.


Like the thirteen year old school girl shot through the head by an Israeli sniper while she was sitting at her desk studying algebra? Of course, it must have been a mistake, they only kill the "bad terrorist" 8 year olds, don't they? :ugh: :mad:

[remoak]

Like the thirteen year old school girl shot through the head

Well, no. She wasn't attacking Israeli soldiers, was she...?? :rolleyes:

I don't think that the Israelis are entirely without fault (to put it mildly), but their indiscretions are few and far between compared to the avalanche of violence with which they are faced.

So, in your eyes, this girl being killed by a sniper is somehow worse than similar-aged children blowing themselves up on buses, and taking out dozens of other people, including children? Interesting logic.

[Hempy]

So, in your eyes, this girl being killed by a sniper is somehow worse than similar-aged children blowing themselves up on buses, and taking out dozens of other people, including children? Interesting logic.

Now, you are putting words into my post. I don't think it is worse at all, I think that they are all as bad as each other, and I think that people who take a polarized view and believe that this is a fight between "good" (Jews/Arabs) and "bad" (Arabs/Jews) have rocks in their collective heads.

[Much Ado]

I would like to see this thread return to the topic..that of terrorism as it effects aviation.

If you guys cannot work out that there is simply no answer to the issues of Palestine and Israel and persist with the current thread direction I will be forced to lock it.

Do I worry about terrorism?

No I don't...the facts are,outside of war zones (let alone in Australia), you are at greater danger of dieing taking a bath than you are of dieing violently...it is that simple. Road accident deaths spiked post 911 because people were afraid of flying. 1000s of extra road accident deaths because people would not get in an aeroplane. More people die every year from the mistakes of doctors in hospitals than die in terrorist attacks...LOTS more.

Perspective has been lost...and it is the fault of our elected leaders and media.

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

The effects of terrorism on aviation are here to stay I think. It's just become another of the realities of globalisation, like outsourcing. The interesting thing is the nature of the terrorists who we currently have issues with. They are a constantly evolving, intelligent enemy and to think they would try the same thing again doesn't give them the respect they deserve. They will kill more innocents but it probably won't be with an aircraft as other posters have pointed out. Aviations biggest threat comes from copycats and isolated beginner cells. They are often harder to identify but easier to stop.

One of the ways we can make security less intrusive and overt is to focus on other smarter ways of identifying threats. I read recently in Janes about new profiling methods and software. It takes a good deal of training to profile effectively as well as having those unpalatable political correctness implications, but it is a very good way of getting things sorted. What we need to do is remove the reliance on secondary methods and look at primary means of removing threats.

Removing primary threats will require big expenditures on human intel and lots of footwork. The constant interruptions to our lives with secondary security measures only give the evildoers more kudos, it may make some of us feel safer but they are already looking at other methods to hurt us. The best thing we can do is become covert in threat identification, look for the holes and close them and stop being afraid of a extremists who can't be bargained with.:ugh:

[J430]

And these are the guys we have to look after us.................:ugh: :ugh: := And I wonder who checks them out:sad:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=85748

Makes you feel a whole heap safer!
J:ok: