Terrorist plot thwarted?
Deferred, I'm not "proposing" anything and might i add, NOTHING will change UNTIL there is a hull loss. Then Twitter, Facebook and Instagram will dictate what happens and when.
As someone who is potentially at risk if one of these nutters succeeds, i feel that I am at least entitled to express an opinion.
If we took a step back and looked at the bigger, broader picture, which is what is killing our friends, loved ones etc, the answer isnt religious based terrorism, it isnt driving half a km/hr over the speed limit, it isnt a whole bunch of things that we regularly throw money at.
It is cancer, it is heart disease, it is suicide and mental health issues, negative health outcomes caused by the medical profession just to name a few.
I reckon we would get more value for money trying to save more people rather than spending on airport security theatre, "every k kills" bull**** ad campaigns amd other such populist nonsense.
By all means have an effective security apparatus at the airport, an effective surveillance and intelligence capability to stop nutters from doing stuff, but lets focus our efforts where we can really save lives.
After all this all ramped up after 9/11, a tragic event that needlessly took the lives of 3-4000 people (sorry cant remember the correct number) but taking a broader, less emotional view, only 3-4000 people, compared to the millions killed by the other causes.
If we invest in cancer research, in research into heart disease, in research into mental health and suicide prevention, we will save far more people than we have by throwing dollar after dollar into the pocket of people whose only incentive is trade on our fear, and the fear of our politicians, when they recommend tighter and stricter security measures at airports etc.
On a per head saved basis, the investment in aviation security in particular, would not pass the pub test if it were relabelled and presented to the general public for review.
If we took a step back and looked at the bigger, broader picture, which is what is killing our friends, loved ones etc, the answer isnt religious based terrorism, it isnt driving half a km/hr over the speed limit, it isnt a whole bunch of things that we regularly throw money at.
It is cancer, it is heart disease, it is suicide and mental health issues, negative health outcomes caused by the medical profession just to name a few.
I reckon we would get more value for money trying to save more people rather than spending on airport security theatre, "every k kills" bull**** ad campaigns amd other such populist nonsense.
By all means have an effective security apparatus at the airport, an effective surveillance and intelligence capability to stop nutters from doing stuff, but lets focus our efforts where we can really save lives.
After all this all ramped up after 9/11, a tragic event that needlessly took the lives of 3-4000 people (sorry cant remember the correct number) but taking a broader, less emotional view, only 3-4000 people, compared to the millions killed by the other causes.
If we invest in cancer research, in research into heart disease, in research into mental health and suicide prevention, we will save far more people than we have by throwing dollar after dollar into the pocket of people whose only incentive is trade on our fear, and the fear of our politicians, when they recommend tighter and stricter security measures at airports etc.
On a per head saved basis, the investment in aviation security in particular, would not pass the pub test if it were relabelled and presented to the general public for review.
In the United States, a person is more likely to be shot dead by a toddler who gets hold of a gun than by a terrorist.
Where is the super ministry to deal with domestic violence???
Aside from the whole concept, the fact that Dutton is in charge is more frightening than any alleged terrorist threat.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's Australian:
Pilots worried about aircraft security
Airline pilots are seriously concerned about inconsistencies in the security screening of ground and air staff at Australia's major airports.
The Australian Airline Pilots Association is questioning why its 5000 members are subjected to stricter screening than others with aircraft access, including baggage handlers, cleaners and catering staff.
"It's an inconsistency that needs to be rectified, particularly in light of the recently enhanced screening arrangements at Australian airports," president Murray Butt said on Wednesday.
The demand for action echoes calls by transport workers and federal police as airport security is tightened following an alleged foiled plot to bomb or gas a passenger plane out of Sydney.
Pilots are also unconvinced about private contractors doing security screening rather than a government agency.
Captain Butt says these issues have been raised with the government in the past but have fallen on deaf ears.
Senator Nick Xenophon, who spearheaded a recent inquiry into aviation security, will urge the government to plug the screening gap when parliament returns next week.
"I have great respect for the work that ground crew at airports do but this loophole fails to pass the most cursory of pub tests," he said.
The Transport Workers Union has also panned airport security, saying high staff turnover means workers without security clearance are being granted access to high-risk areas.
National secretary Tony Sheldon says casual staff are allowed behind the scenes without adequate training.
He wants a single authority in charge of national airport safety.
Police fear organised crime figures are getting work at airports and ports and exploiting their security passes to influence the screening of cargo and passengers.
More than 60 organisations and companies can issue aviation and maritime security identification cards, with the AFP warning the more people who can dish them out, the more vulnerable they become.
There are 250,000 aviation and maritime security cards issued but the regulator responsible cannot say how many workers have ceased employment and not given their cards back.
The passes are issued by organisations including airlines, the immigration department and port operators, and while the Office of Transport Security runs card-return campaigns, nobody has ever been fined for refusing.
The agency is investigating adding biometrics to security cards and cutting the number of issuers.
It is also boosting screening of airport staff working in restricted areas, expanding the scope of background checks and forcing those who issue ID cards to verify identities face-to-face.
Anyone with links to serious or organised crime would be blocked from getting identification cards under legislation before parliament.
Airline pilots are seriously concerned about inconsistencies in the security screening of ground and air staff at Australia's major airports.
The Australian Airline Pilots Association is questioning why its 5000 members are subjected to stricter screening than others with aircraft access, including baggage handlers, cleaners and catering staff.
"It's an inconsistency that needs to be rectified, particularly in light of the recently enhanced screening arrangements at Australian airports," president Murray Butt said on Wednesday.
The demand for action echoes calls by transport workers and federal police as airport security is tightened following an alleged foiled plot to bomb or gas a passenger plane out of Sydney.
Pilots are also unconvinced about private contractors doing security screening rather than a government agency.
Captain Butt says these issues have been raised with the government in the past but have fallen on deaf ears.
Senator Nick Xenophon, who spearheaded a recent inquiry into aviation security, will urge the government to plug the screening gap when parliament returns next week.
"I have great respect for the work that ground crew at airports do but this loophole fails to pass the most cursory of pub tests," he said.
The Transport Workers Union has also panned airport security, saying high staff turnover means workers without security clearance are being granted access to high-risk areas.
National secretary Tony Sheldon says casual staff are allowed behind the scenes without adequate training.
He wants a single authority in charge of national airport safety.
Police fear organised crime figures are getting work at airports and ports and exploiting their security passes to influence the screening of cargo and passengers.
More than 60 organisations and companies can issue aviation and maritime security identification cards, with the AFP warning the more people who can dish them out, the more vulnerable they become.
There are 250,000 aviation and maritime security cards issued but the regulator responsible cannot say how many workers have ceased employment and not given their cards back.
The passes are issued by organisations including airlines, the immigration department and port operators, and while the Office of Transport Security runs card-return campaigns, nobody has ever been fined for refusing.
The agency is investigating adding biometrics to security cards and cutting the number of issuers.
It is also boosting screening of airport staff working in restricted areas, expanding the scope of background checks and forcing those who issue ID cards to verify identities face-to-face.
Anyone with links to serious or organised crime would be blocked from getting identification cards under legislation before parliament.
The Australian Airline Pilots Association is questioning why its 5000 members are subjected to stricter screening than others with aircraft access
Pilots are also unconvinced about private contractors doing security screening rather than a government agency.
Police fear organised crime figures are getting work at airports and ports and exploiting their security passes to influence the screening of cargo and passengers.
National secretary Tony Sheldon says casual staff are allowed behind the scenes without adequate training.
He wants a single authority in charge of national airport safety.
Oh wait, does he really mean security?
There is - it's called OTS.
More than 60 organisations and companies can issue aviation and maritime security identification cards, with the AFP warning the more people who can dish them out, the more vulnerable they become.
...and ports....maritime security identification cards.....maritime security cards....port operators....
There are 250,000 aviation and maritime security cards issued but the regulator responsible cannot say how many workers have ceased employment and not given their cards back.
That article is a joke. How many barrows can be pushed in so few paragraphs? Was it written by GT?
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 2nd Aug 2017 at 13:13. Reason: speling
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eeesh! What a load of crock... 
All I can say is that if we are to be given the same shake down as crew and pax at entry to the port, then there shall be no reasonable objection for me AT ALL climbing the aerobridge stairs, scanning my boarding pass then boarding a domestic service. I've been given the same shake down as crew and pax, haven't I?
Never mind that I've picked up a tool of my trade along the way and have forgotten to offload it prior to boarding.
Stupidity in spades
All I can say is that if we are to be given the same shake down as crew and pax at entry to the port, then there shall be no reasonable objection for me AT ALL climbing the aerobridge stairs, scanning my boarding pass then boarding a domestic service. I've been given the same shake down as crew and pax, haven't I?
Never mind that I've picked up a tool of my trade along the way and have forgotten to offload it prior to boarding.
Stupidity in spades
All that increased security will do is destroy the careers of ground staff who did drugs ten years ago or got involved in petty crime. It will not increase security at all, merely give pilots a schadenfreude moment to see ground staff now as miserable as they are.
The thing pilots have forgotten is that ISIS linked terrorists are not stupid. They are not the idiots the AFP catches who attend dodgy mosques and research and discuss their plans over phones and the internet.
The real bad guys have military explosives training, a covert support network with excellent research capability, an effective security and communication system and plenty of money. You will not catch them with some ASIC card check or see them mouthing off about infidels in some Lakemba mosque. If they mount an operation, they will use cleanskins with all the documentation and security cards. One can only hope ASIO is disrupting their operations in secret.
To put that another way, the calibre of AFP operations and the clowns they have arrested and charged do not seem to me to be that professional. Neither do the acts of terrorism, however vile, already perpetrated in Australia because they were committed by self radicalising arse*****s and nutters. I fail to see why we need increased visible "security theatre" to combat them.
However the above is my opinion. The threats may be worse and more consistent. We will never know from reading "The Australian".
The thing pilots have forgotten is that ISIS linked terrorists are not stupid. They are not the idiots the AFP catches who attend dodgy mosques and research and discuss their plans over phones and the internet.
The real bad guys have military explosives training, a covert support network with excellent research capability, an effective security and communication system and plenty of money. You will not catch them with some ASIC card check or see them mouthing off about infidels in some Lakemba mosque. If they mount an operation, they will use cleanskins with all the documentation and security cards. One can only hope ASIO is disrupting their operations in secret.
To put that another way, the calibre of AFP operations and the clowns they have arrested and charged do not seem to me to be that professional. Neither do the acts of terrorism, however vile, already perpetrated in Australia because they were committed by self radicalising arse*****s and nutters. I fail to see why we need increased visible "security theatre" to combat them.
However the above is my opinion. The threats may be worse and more consistent. We will never know from reading "The Australian".
Sunfish ground staff have asics already so anyone with a 10 year old drug conviction has already been caught out.
The pilots are saying that allowing one group unfettered, unscreened access to airside and all it entails leaves a security hole you could drive a mosque through.
The reality is that screening pilots IS theatre, as we walk onboard the aircraft with the weapons we need every time we step onboard - our hands.
The fairytale about people holding families to ransom unless they do something nefarious is more likely out of a Liam Neeson film than real life and as a group pilots have much more invested in their careers and by extension more to lose.
Granted there isnt much more to lose than your life if you are a terrorist intent on self destruction, but if we were to look at the demographics of the average modern day terrorist i dont think pilots would fit comfortably within the description.
On the other hand, poorly paid, over worked employees, often contractors who are in effect transient workers, may well be susceptible to radicalisation or manipulation by evil doers.
The pilots are saying that allowing one group unfettered, unscreened access to airside and all it entails leaves a security hole you could drive a mosque through.
The reality is that screening pilots IS theatre, as we walk onboard the aircraft with the weapons we need every time we step onboard - our hands.
The fairytale about people holding families to ransom unless they do something nefarious is more likely out of a Liam Neeson film than real life and as a group pilots have much more invested in their careers and by extension more to lose.
Granted there isnt much more to lose than your life if you are a terrorist intent on self destruction, but if we were to look at the demographics of the average modern day terrorist i dont think pilots would fit comfortably within the description.
On the other hand, poorly paid, over worked employees, often contractors who are in effect transient workers, may well be susceptible to radicalisation or manipulation by evil doers.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A system is only as good as its weakest link.
Currently that weakest link is airside staff that receive next to no screening. You can literally drive a truck through that hole.
Until this is fixed there is absolutely no point in beefing up security in other areas. The Australian article is spot on, although I wish the Tony Sheehans of this world would but out. He sees an opportunity to bolster union membership so his comments are clearly biased.
Either scan everyone heading airside to the same standard or just bin airport security completely and spend the money saved elsewhere on the intelligence gaining systems to spot the the problems before they get to an airport.
Currently that weakest link is airside staff that receive next to no screening. You can literally drive a truck through that hole.
Until this is fixed there is absolutely no point in beefing up security in other areas. The Australian article is spot on, although I wish the Tony Sheehans of this world would but out. He sees an opportunity to bolster union membership so his comments are clearly biased.
Either scan everyone heading airside to the same standard or just bin airport security completely and spend the money saved elsewhere on the intelligence gaining systems to spot the the problems before they get to an airport.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Either scan everyone heading airside to the same standard or just bin airport security completely and spend the money saved elsewhere on the intelligence gaining systems to spot the the problems before they get to an airport.
The question is what is a weapon? The answer is anything if wielded by a person with intent to do harm. I remember an article which basically stated that properly trained cabin staff can identify an individual who has the potential to cause trouble 99% of the time by noticing certain behaviours etc.
Certainly scan checked baggage, remove baggage if a person fails to board the flight, check carry on luggage for obvious dangers (hand guns, sticks of explosives etc) but also have the trained staff and the laws to backup their decision to remove or restrain someone without the fear of political correctness destroying them and with the various agencies in the background who can act sooner rather than at the last minute for fear the courts will be more sympathetic to the poor potential terrorist and their rights rather than the right of thousands of others to travel safely.
Dexta, Snakecharma and others. What I am trying to say is that screening airside staff is about as useful as screening pilots. Furthermore, if Australia receives the attentions of real terrorists instead of the local clowns, then screening isn't going to stop them.
But hey, its just my opinion.
But hey, its just my opinion.
Remember you are dealing with people who really believe they have 72 virgins awating them after they do their deadly work and that they will have an eternal erection and a fresh supply of virgins every day, forever.....
.
So the legislation should be changed so that aircrew do not require screening or that all airport workers do require screening. It should be consistent. It doesn't matter whether they are "real" terrorists or just people intent on doing others harm through a violent act. If there is a gaping hole in the security of airports and aircraft then at the moment it is obvious where that hole is.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Amongst the Gum Tree's
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the idea that someone pitched in a previous post... spend the money on something else like... pilot mental health, cabin crew threat identification and management training, drug and bomb sniffer dogs... anything but the useless screening equipment at the doors.
Don't get me wrong, aviation security needs continuous improving and monitoring which is an idea I support, but creating screening for the sake of "we have to do it, why don't they?" is rubbish.
I only hope the government and its agencies have the foresight to know how ineffective door and gate screening could be if they yield to ALPA's whim-of-the-day... and I trust they will.
Don't get me wrong, aviation security needs continuous improving and monitoring which is an idea I support, but creating screening for the sake of "we have to do it, why don't they?" is rubbish.
I only hope the government and its agencies have the foresight to know how ineffective door and gate screening could be if they yield to ALPA's whim-of-the-day... and I trust they will.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
all crew got screened at LHR back in the eighties.
Difference was it was dedicated crew screening including the crew bus. You were then driven to the aircraft no need to pass through the terminal.
Don't know if it still happens today
all crew got screened at LHR back in the eighties.
Difference was it was dedicated crew screening including the crew bus. You were then driven to the aircraft no need to pass through the terminal.
Don't know if it still happens today
Has anybody considered these terrorist issues may cease to exist if we stopped sending our "Defence Force" over to the middle east to help turn prosperous countries into failed states for the sake of cheap petrol? Thought not. You people need to start discussing the real issue and not the symptoms.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rodney, before you go down that road, you may want to consider a little bit of history, Westerners have been poking the hornet nest for geopolitical reasons.
Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Carter's security advisor)
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen: Zbigniew Brzezinski.
There has been western meddling in the Middle East since the crusades. Especially noteworthy is the post WWII era for a very strategic reason, energy.
Blood and Oil Featuring Michael Klare (transcript)
Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Carter's security advisor)
Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p.
76*
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the
Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in
Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national
security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that
correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen
began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec
1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was
July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents
of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in
which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military
intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself
desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight
against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe
them. However, there was a basis of truth. Y ou don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the
Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the
opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow
had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given
arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central
Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism
represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam.
That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without
demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers.
But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco,
Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries.
* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the
Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French
version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.
The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible,
"Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue
76*
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the
Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in
Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national
security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that
correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen
began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec
1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was
July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents
of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in
which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military
intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself
desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight
against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe
them. However, there was a basis of truth. Y ou don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the
Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the
opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow
had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given
arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central
Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism
represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam.
That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without
demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers.
But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco,
Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more
than what unites the Christian countries.
* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the
Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French
version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.
The above has been translated from the French by Bill Blum author of the indispensible,
"Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" and "Rogue
There has been western meddling in the Middle East since the crusades. Especially noteworthy is the post WWII era for a very strategic reason, energy.
U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT MEMO, AUGUST 1945:
The oil resources [of the Middle East] constitute a stupendous source of strategic
power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.
The oil resources [of the Middle East] constitute a stupendous source of strategic
power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.
rodney rotorslap:
yes i do. we seem to be quite happy to support torture, genocide and the murder of children when it suits us. My recollection is also that we quite liked the taliban governing afghanistan after they had defeated the russians and destroyed the opium fields. our esteemed colleagues in the USA have allegedly developed the habit of shooting black americans for no good reason. should we fight them too?
to put that another way, your "responsibility to protect" (R2P) argument fails because it is hypocritically and selectively applied by us.
So you think it's wrong to fight those who would happily shoot a little girl in the head simply because she wants to go to school?
to put that another way, your "responsibility to protect" (R2P) argument fails because it is hypocritically and selectively applied by us.