Continued U.S interfering with foreign airlines
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stagger,
On both AA flights a flight attendant picked up an airphone (btw no longer available on most planes) and called ops and stayed on the phone for quite a while (to the end). Among other things we knew the seats the hijackers were in, what they did when they congregated before the attack and who they killed in their initial demonstration of resolve.... Do not dismiss flight attendants lightly, in their own element they are suprisingly observant!
(there were not many people on the airplane to start with)
MOR, it doesn't have to be the airline withholding the info. It can be any of the petty Beaurocrats. And while I do discuss alot of things here, I treat the security of aircraft VERY seriously and would NOT disclose stuff deamed sensative (Aside from the fact that releasing it would involve the possibility of me being prosecuted, and as Danny knows who I am, the name WINO won't protect me for more than 3 secs)
But alot of people here are deliberately spinning things they shouldn't be... They have their own adgenda and it may not be the same as mine which is the safety of my aircraft... Some would rather score points
Cheers
Wino
On both AA flights a flight attendant picked up an airphone (btw no longer available on most planes) and called ops and stayed on the phone for quite a while (to the end). Among other things we knew the seats the hijackers were in, what they did when they congregated before the attack and who they killed in their initial demonstration of resolve.... Do not dismiss flight attendants lightly, in their own element they are suprisingly observant!
(there were not many people on the airplane to start with)
MOR, it doesn't have to be the airline withholding the info. It can be any of the petty Beaurocrats. And while I do discuss alot of things here, I treat the security of aircraft VERY seriously and would NOT disclose stuff deamed sensative (Aside from the fact that releasing it would involve the possibility of me being prosecuted, and as Danny knows who I am, the name WINO won't protect me for more than 3 secs)
But alot of people here are deliberately spinning things they shouldn't be... They have their own adgenda and it may not be the same as mine which is the safety of my aircraft... Some would rather score points
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The existence of Sky Marshalls didn't prevent the hi-jacking of 4 US aircraft on 9/11 did it? That was proof enough that they don't work as a deterent. The fact that (to my knowledge) only US and Israeli ac have Sky Marshalls suggest this is just another way for the Administration to keep foreign ac out of US airspace and protect (financially) their floundering airlines, as other nations do not have enough marshalls required to operate into the US.
I echo the sentiment that we should ban ac with Sky Marshalls on board from UK airspace. Full screening and pax profiling is the only way to move security forwards.
I echo the sentiment that we should ban ac with Sky Marshalls on board from UK airspace. Full screening and pax profiling is the only way to move security forwards.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whipper snapper,
Prior to 9/11 skymarshals (all 10 of them) were restricted to international flights. That is where the threat was perceived because of all the TWA/PANAM hijackings. Furthermore, if a domestic aircraft had been hijacked, it would not have had the fuel on board to cross the atlantic so it would have had to land somewhere in the USA to get fuel first where its tires would have been shot out. That was felt to be enough of a solution because nobody had the forsite to realize that hijacking the aircraft would be the first step in using them as a weapon.
But since they were looking to use airplanes as weapons and a flight headed to athens would have had MUCH more fuel on board and therefore would have been a better weapon, the evidence is that skymarshals did work. They went for the flights with out them...
Terrorists took advantage of the different levels of security in America. That doesn't exist anymore.
Interestingly if you do actually ban armed guards from your airplanes, think how nice it will be for the US airlines. They will get to carry Tony Blair and his onterage, or Prince Charles or anyone else who brings armed security with them on the plane. Boy that will go over well
Cheers
Wino
Prior to 9/11 skymarshals (all 10 of them) were restricted to international flights. That is where the threat was perceived because of all the TWA/PANAM hijackings. Furthermore, if a domestic aircraft had been hijacked, it would not have had the fuel on board to cross the atlantic so it would have had to land somewhere in the USA to get fuel first where its tires would have been shot out. That was felt to be enough of a solution because nobody had the forsite to realize that hijacking the aircraft would be the first step in using them as a weapon.
But since they were looking to use airplanes as weapons and a flight headed to athens would have had MUCH more fuel on board and therefore would have been a better weapon, the evidence is that skymarshals did work. They went for the flights with out them...
Terrorists took advantage of the different levels of security in America. That doesn't exist anymore.
Interestingly if you do actually ban armed guards from your airplanes, think how nice it will be for the US airlines. They will get to carry Tony Blair and his onterage, or Prince Charles or anyone else who brings armed security with them on the plane. Boy that will go over well
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was felt to be enough of a solution because nobody had the forsite to realize that hijacking the aircraft would be the first step in using them as a weapon.
I think the current demands to foreign carriers are a step backwards and very demanging to the industry. My biggest worry are those SAM 7As ...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This remind me of the story about the guy on a cross-country train trip in Scotland who tore up a newspaper and tossed bits out the window every few miles. He was asked what he was doing and he replied that it was to keep the lions from attacking the train. The fact that the train was not attacked by lions proved he was right.
It will be hard to know, but from reports issued by BA etc there was no specific threat, and no terrorists were caught. In fact by publicising it the way they did, the bad guys would have merely delayed their attack, not cancelled it. I have never heard of a single case in the entire history of aviation where a threat to an airplane ever resulted in an attack (bombing, hijacking or whatever). Every attack has been a surprise, with no warning given. And we know that the terrorists are much smarter now; it is hard to see how they will be stopped by all this stupidity. Even the 'best' airline for security (El Al) saw an attempted hijacking last year, with one of the only cases of a real weapon (a pocket knife) being used.
Do we know that the current paranoid hysteria has any effect on preventing or deterring terrorists? Is there in fact any plan to attack airplanes, or are they merely stirring the pot to see the reaction? Or, more likely, is it being done by some govt department in order to cause panic and enable them to expand their control and influence? (making themselves more important and thus entitled to more money). If there is no attack after the paranoia dies down it will allow them to claim they stopped an attack, just like the guy with the newspaper.
Remember they still have not closed the loopholes at the airports; only crew and passengers have to go through security, all others come and go as they please.
Telling foreign cargo airlines that they have to carry air marshalls and have strengthened cockpit doors if they want to fly to the US is pure protectionism, and I wonder how much of all this garbage is meant to be more of the same.
It will be hard to know, but from reports issued by BA etc there was no specific threat, and no terrorists were caught. In fact by publicising it the way they did, the bad guys would have merely delayed their attack, not cancelled it. I have never heard of a single case in the entire history of aviation where a threat to an airplane ever resulted in an attack (bombing, hijacking or whatever). Every attack has been a surprise, with no warning given. And we know that the terrorists are much smarter now; it is hard to see how they will be stopped by all this stupidity. Even the 'best' airline for security (El Al) saw an attempted hijacking last year, with one of the only cases of a real weapon (a pocket knife) being used.
Do we know that the current paranoid hysteria has any effect on preventing or deterring terrorists? Is there in fact any plan to attack airplanes, or are they merely stirring the pot to see the reaction? Or, more likely, is it being done by some govt department in order to cause panic and enable them to expand their control and influence? (making themselves more important and thus entitled to more money). If there is no attack after the paranoia dies down it will allow them to claim they stopped an attack, just like the guy with the newspaper.
Remember they still have not closed the loopholes at the airports; only crew and passengers have to go through security, all others come and go as they please.
Telling foreign cargo airlines that they have to carry air marshalls and have strengthened cockpit doors if they want to fly to the US is pure protectionism, and I wonder how much of all this garbage is meant to be more of the same.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience with the "no congregating" rule shows that hanging out around the front lav in the cabin door area is the "no-no" and rigorously enforced by the FAs. Reckon ya can figure this out by yourselves. I see plenty of congregating at the rear lavs with nothing more than watchfulness by the cabin crew.
Yes, this is one pax that goes on high alert when someone walks to the forward lav ! Especially when that someone tries to come from the rear cabin .......
Yes, this is one pax that goes on high alert when someone walks to the forward lav ! Especially when that someone tries to come from the rear cabin .......
I wonder if enforcement of the congregation rule will become contingent upon the Department of Homeland Security Alert status?
Green Alert: Unrestricted use of lavatories permitted – congregation tolerated.
Blue: Unrestricted use of lavatories permitted – however congregation prior to urination or defecation strictly prohibited without valid medical reason.
Yellow: Lavatory use regulated by ticket system – congregation not permitted under any circumstances.
Orange: Lavatory use only permitted if booked in two weeks in advance and permission is subject to security vetting. Anyone violating the no-congregation rule will be restrained for the duration of the flight.
Red: All passengers must be catheterized and have US government approved colostomy bags installed prior to departure. Congregators will be shot.
Green Alert: Unrestricted use of lavatories permitted – congregation tolerated.
Blue: Unrestricted use of lavatories permitted – however congregation prior to urination or defecation strictly prohibited without valid medical reason.
Yellow: Lavatory use regulated by ticket system – congregation not permitted under any circumstances.
Orange: Lavatory use only permitted if booked in two weeks in advance and permission is subject to security vetting. Anyone violating the no-congregation rule will be restrained for the duration of the flight.
Red: All passengers must be catheterized and have US government approved colostomy bags installed prior to departure. Congregators will be shot.
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not dismiss flight attendants lightly, in their own element they are suprisingly observant!
This rule is just another one in a series of un-enforcable rules handed down by people who do not care about what actually happens in the cabin of a civil airliner. All they are interested in is covering their collective @rses.
We already have the rule that no passenger may be in a galley without an FA present. With the toilet on the 737 located in the front galley, enforcing this rule would mean that service to pax in the front of the ac would be interrupted continuously to the point of it becoming non-existent.
As cabin crew we can pick. Either we serve the pax the food & drink they expect and which management tells us to serve, or we enforce the rule the way management tells us to. We can't do both.
Management knows this. Management also knows that we will in fact serve the food (to avoid getting lynched by the full fare paying pax at the front of the AC) instead of spending the entire flight in the front galley keeping pax company while they wait in line for the toilet.
Putting in an extra FA to make the rule workable, would cost money and is therefore a no-no. But being seen to have made a rule is what counts.
They have put in place a rule, so they are safety conscious and comply with all USA directives. Should anything happen, the blame can be seemlessly transferred to the the stupid stewardesses who do not have enough brains to realise that safety of course always comes before serving food.
Neat, isn't it?
This new impossible-to-enforce rule will not improve airline safety.
But all backsides are decorously covered and that's what counts.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's rich is to hear all this about Bush protecting US airlines. Not two weeks ago he approved cargo cabotage through PANC between domestic cities!
To call these new regulations idiotic is to insult idiots, but please, God, PLEASE quit fooling yourself into thinking anyone in government is trying to help the US airlines. We haven't had a friend in the White House since Nixon (yes, I said Nixon(!)).
To call these new regulations idiotic is to insult idiots, but please, God, PLEASE quit fooling yourself into thinking anyone in government is trying to help the US airlines. We haven't had a friend in the White House since Nixon (yes, I said Nixon(!)).
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how times have changed.
It's not so long since the US flying public wouldn't get into a feather bed if there was a sniff of a war or threat to security. Is there a case of terror fatigue on the other side of the pond?
The loads on TA don't seem to be affected that much despite all the negative publicity. People appear to feel unthreatened, why? Do the public trust the agencies issuing the warning?
If a flight had a specific terrorist threat why re-route all the pax? Surely the threat is now just moved to another flight.
There seem to be two possibilities:
1: There is reliable intelligence about a very real and imminent threat;
2: This is merely propaganda promulgated to create a more favourable arena for a certain individual;
To be honest I'm not sure which is more sinister.
It's not so long since the US flying public wouldn't get into a feather bed if there was a sniff of a war or threat to security. Is there a case of terror fatigue on the other side of the pond?
The loads on TA don't seem to be affected that much despite all the negative publicity. People appear to feel unthreatened, why? Do the public trust the agencies issuing the warning?
If a flight had a specific terrorist threat why re-route all the pax? Surely the threat is now just moved to another flight.
There seem to be two possibilities:
1: There is reliable intelligence about a very real and imminent threat;
2: This is merely propaganda promulgated to create a more favourable arena for a certain individual;
To be honest I'm not sure which is more sinister.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And here's me thinking that the AIRPLANE film was a comedy, when actually
it was being played in all true to life seriousness.
I wonder where the TSAs (Terminally Sick Americans) got that non
congregating bit from? Perhaps they recall pre-oil days when the Kingdom
of Libya was around, and the then King Idris was raking in all the
american money - for himself - for the use of Wheelus Air Force Base. He
was paranoid too and had a similar worry over people gathering in small
groups. Quite rightly, as history shows. Then we have Oman, where the
previous top man also had a hang up about his conspiratorial countrymen
and banned gatherings greater than groups of four in public places, even
though he had well paid British mercenaries for protection.
So what about DVT? The medical profession suggest that passengers get
up and move around. Now if the pax seated near the toilets obey medical
advice, then we can easily see a problem or two or three.
Perhaps the BSE cow was eaten by President Bush. He certainly exhibits
all the right symptoms.
MOR
I can't help being stupid. It's the drugs!
it was being played in all true to life seriousness.
I wonder where the TSAs (Terminally Sick Americans) got that non
congregating bit from? Perhaps they recall pre-oil days when the Kingdom
of Libya was around, and the then King Idris was raking in all the
american money - for himself - for the use of Wheelus Air Force Base. He
was paranoid too and had a similar worry over people gathering in small
groups. Quite rightly, as history shows. Then we have Oman, where the
previous top man also had a hang up about his conspiratorial countrymen
and banned gatherings greater than groups of four in public places, even
though he had well paid British mercenaries for protection.
So what about DVT? The medical profession suggest that passengers get
up and move around. Now if the pax seated near the toilets obey medical
advice, then we can easily see a problem or two or three.
Perhaps the BSE cow was eaten by President Bush. He certainly exhibits
all the right symptoms.
MOR
I can't help being stupid. It's the drugs!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pompano Beach,FL- USA
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HUCK---or anybody...Is there a thread detailing the decision nor law about cargo cabotage in PANC.? It was being considered,but then I saw nothing more.
On the other issues, I have read 3 pages of comments. I am an American and don't always agree with the government(freedom allows one to do that) and don't always agree with every law and directive that anybody sends out no matter what country. But to live in society, you have to abide by the law or change it. Civilied countries that have freedom have that option. But this is not intended to be a political discussion.
It is intended to try to tell you why things in the US are as they are. Why did no one attack the US since Pearl Harbor? It is a record that 9/11 happened and a lot of the world says,'"So what!" Of course a lot of people (innocent ones) died in 9/11 from lots of countries.
But the US doesn't want Mom and Pop's screen door company flying into the US and crashing into another building. Terrorists don't care. And terrorists may be trying another way to do it with other LAX airlines and there are many of those who don't think they are vulnerable. They also will likely try to crash into Parliment, the Opera House, The Effiel Tower, and other places so that they may establish their presence. I'll bet world attitude will change IF and WHEN this happens.
On the trivial bathroom matter, I think it was intended for First class or whereever the cockpit is. Regardless, mobs and groups of people do constitue a terrorist threat. Even if they didn't, how would you like the last few rows on a 747 or 757 and 50 people were lined up in your face to go to the bathroom???
While some rules appear stupid (and some might be), everybody is going to comply or they won't fly into the US or any country for that matter. If country X only wants arrivals every 2 mintues or no airplane within 20 miles of another, THEY are going to set the rules. NOT YOU nor some opinionated know-it-all on PPRUNE or any forum.
If the US wants air marshalls, then you are going to provide them OR you can go fly somewhere else. They add to the safety and they are not on every flight. Do you see a policeman or undercover agent on every corner or should their be one? The element of surprise is a deterent.
On the issue of the sky marshalls were not on the 4 hijacked American Airlines from American and United, it was luck of the draw.Who knows what the outcome would have been had they been there. Maybe it didn't happen to anybody that you knew nor your country and not your airline. But it did happen in my country and to my former airline and to the Captain who I knew personally. Maybe you can justify all of this to his family. I can't.
So it is easy to sit back and mock things when one has no idea of why or how things go, went, or might go in the future.
On a slightly different subject, can one tell me if there is a thread that discusses the opposition from the BA Pilots union about armed SKY Marshalls or can someone define what the opposition comes from? It is my understanding that they are BRITISH people on BRITISH flights protecting mostly BRITISH citizens. I fail to see the problem. I only saw this opposition issue on TV, so maybe there is more to the story
On the other issues, I have read 3 pages of comments. I am an American and don't always agree with the government(freedom allows one to do that) and don't always agree with every law and directive that anybody sends out no matter what country. But to live in society, you have to abide by the law or change it. Civilied countries that have freedom have that option. But this is not intended to be a political discussion.
It is intended to try to tell you why things in the US are as they are. Why did no one attack the US since Pearl Harbor? It is a record that 9/11 happened and a lot of the world says,'"So what!" Of course a lot of people (innocent ones) died in 9/11 from lots of countries.
But the US doesn't want Mom and Pop's screen door company flying into the US and crashing into another building. Terrorists don't care. And terrorists may be trying another way to do it with other LAX airlines and there are many of those who don't think they are vulnerable. They also will likely try to crash into Parliment, the Opera House, The Effiel Tower, and other places so that they may establish their presence. I'll bet world attitude will change IF and WHEN this happens.
On the trivial bathroom matter, I think it was intended for First class or whereever the cockpit is. Regardless, mobs and groups of people do constitue a terrorist threat. Even if they didn't, how would you like the last few rows on a 747 or 757 and 50 people were lined up in your face to go to the bathroom???
While some rules appear stupid (and some might be), everybody is going to comply or they won't fly into the US or any country for that matter. If country X only wants arrivals every 2 mintues or no airplane within 20 miles of another, THEY are going to set the rules. NOT YOU nor some opinionated know-it-all on PPRUNE or any forum.
If the US wants air marshalls, then you are going to provide them OR you can go fly somewhere else. They add to the safety and they are not on every flight. Do you see a policeman or undercover agent on every corner or should their be one? The element of surprise is a deterent.
On the issue of the sky marshalls were not on the 4 hijacked American Airlines from American and United, it was luck of the draw.Who knows what the outcome would have been had they been there. Maybe it didn't happen to anybody that you knew nor your country and not your airline. But it did happen in my country and to my former airline and to the Captain who I knew personally. Maybe you can justify all of this to his family. I can't.
So it is easy to sit back and mock things when one has no idea of why or how things go, went, or might go in the future.
On a slightly different subject, can one tell me if there is a thread that discusses the opposition from the BA Pilots union about armed SKY Marshalls or can someone define what the opposition comes from? It is my understanding that they are BRITISH people on BRITISH flights protecting mostly BRITISH citizens. I fail to see the problem. I only saw this opposition issue on TV, so maybe there is more to the story
Hi all,
I am very pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of the posts shows sensible and justified reactions from the pros to this madness. Their short history is full of fears and paranoias, they like and enjoy to be on alert against whatever enemies/invaders excite their need to overreact - circle the wagons.
It's about time we react or retaliate instead of abiding to any new nonsense.
Cheers
ATN
I am very pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of the posts shows sensible and justified reactions from the pros to this madness. Their short history is full of fears and paranoias, they like and enjoy to be on alert against whatever enemies/invaders excite their need to overreact - circle the wagons.
It's about time we react or retaliate instead of abiding to any new nonsense.
Cheers
ATN
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When will our gun-loving cowboy brethren in the good ol' US of A realise that the rest of the world doesn't like being told what to do by a group of tobacco-chewing turnips !
We don't want armed sky marshals on our aircraft and we certainly don't all run round with Magnums in our flight bags.
If they had been slightly more keen on aviation security a couple of years ago,an awful tragedy may have been averted and we wouldn't now be in this ridiculous situation of being preached to by the latterly converted.
Tossers
We don't want armed sky marshals on our aircraft and we certainly don't all run round with Magnums in our flight bags.
If they had been slightly more keen on aviation security a couple of years ago,an awful tragedy may have been averted and we wouldn't now be in this ridiculous situation of being preached to by the latterly converted.
Tossers
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Not far from LPPT
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As some people have said this (non congregation around toilets) is un-enforceable,
people need to go to the toilets, and queues will happen, even on short-haul, never
mind trans-Atlantic flights.
The first problem with an un-enforceable rule is that it will lead to it not being obeyed.
But worst than that is the fact that when you have rules that can not be obeyed there is
a tendency to start ignoring other rules, and end up ignoring rules and requestes that
may be very serious and make perfect sense.
I have seen this kind of process, not in professional aviation as my only contact with
it is through pprune, but in many other activities. It is Human, people will ignore that
which is un-enforceable, and that process will creep into the "neighbouring" rules.
If enforcing rules that make very good sense is quite difficult, trying to impose rules
that are not practical leads to sloppy implementations and non-compliance.
I know perfectly well that dealing with security issues is not simple, but the results
of sloppy work will be costly (in this case lives and $$$€€€) and this is plain sloppy.
Don't misunderstand this as an affirmation of incompetence onto whoever makes the rules
and works on security, errors are human, but these people should also be receptive to
what is being said from the outside.
Suffering from the "Not invented here" syndrome, simply dismissing whatever comes from
outside the US, is not acceptable when dealing with security and LIVES!
Regards
CS-DNA
people need to go to the toilets, and queues will happen, even on short-haul, never
mind trans-Atlantic flights.
The first problem with an un-enforceable rule is that it will lead to it not being obeyed.
But worst than that is the fact that when you have rules that can not be obeyed there is
a tendency to start ignoring other rules, and end up ignoring rules and requestes that
may be very serious and make perfect sense.
I have seen this kind of process, not in professional aviation as my only contact with
it is through pprune, but in many other activities. It is Human, people will ignore that
which is un-enforceable, and that process will creep into the "neighbouring" rules.
If enforcing rules that make very good sense is quite difficult, trying to impose rules
that are not practical leads to sloppy implementations and non-compliance.
I know perfectly well that dealing with security issues is not simple, but the results
of sloppy work will be costly (in this case lives and $$$€€€) and this is plain sloppy.
Don't misunderstand this as an affirmation of incompetence onto whoever makes the rules
and works on security, errors are human, but these people should also be receptive to
what is being said from the outside.
Suffering from the "Not invented here" syndrome, simply dismissing whatever comes from
outside the US, is not acceptable when dealing with security and LIVES!
Regards
CS-DNA
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: France
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paranoïa and nationalism...
...are close neighbours.
That's a reason to avoid joking about supposed american qualities/shortcoming when evaluating these non-sense regulations.
It seems to me that you can imagine Al Qayda last victory is they have made TSA, FAA, USA official lose all sense of realities, because they are afraid of a no-face ennemy, with no central headquarter, lose organisation.
The reason seems to be found in an unadequate security organisation, an excess of computer and a lack of manned intelligence services.
Just after 9/11 laws were passed in USA which are a danger for democracy....passed because Congress was frightened.
Now, after useless invasion and killings in Iraq, and the following increase of terrorist actions, they are more and more afraid, so they will lose control again and start some other stupid kind of policy.
That's a reason to avoid joking about supposed american qualities/shortcoming when evaluating these non-sense regulations.
It seems to me that you can imagine Al Qayda last victory is they have made TSA, FAA, USA official lose all sense of realities, because they are afraid of a no-face ennemy, with no central headquarter, lose organisation.
The reason seems to be found in an unadequate security organisation, an excess of computer and a lack of manned intelligence services.
Just after 9/11 laws were passed in USA which are a danger for democracy....passed because Congress was frightened.
Now, after useless invasion and killings in Iraq, and the following increase of terrorist actions, they are more and more afraid, so they will lose control again and start some other stupid kind of policy.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>When will our gun-loving cowboy brethren in the good ol' US of A realise that the rest of the world doesn't like being told what to do by a group of tobacco-chewing turnips !<<
Why, we Americans will never be accepted by polite society.
When you're Number One it comes with the territory, I suppose...
Why, we Americans will never be accepted by polite society.
When you're Number One it comes with the territory, I suppose...