Don't Quite Understand Liquid Ban

[Ekaj]

So, Ekaj and Princess Peaches, if you've been through those experiences but you still feel what you say, then I owe you an apology.

 

Thank you. I appreciate that. I don't believe it has anything to do with whether or not someone has "been through those experiences", however. That argument appears to glorify the opinions of people that have been through a terrorist tragedy, and put down the opinions of those who have not. Just because someone doesn't live next to a war zone, or live in the middle of terrorist activity, doesn't mean that their thoughts or opinions are any less valid. In fact, it might sometimes be the other way around. Someone who has been through a tragedy like that, and lost a close loved one, may actually be too emotional to be able to think clearly. (Not saying that applies to anyone here; I'm just thinking of some examples of people that fit in this cateory. We have a number of notable ones here in the States...)

 

As for living through it, I don't live in New York, but I did have a friend die on 9-11. He was one of the ones on Flight 93 who helped stop the highjackers. Maybe that's why I feel the way I do; I am so proud of the people on that flight who showed such courage. They took matters into their own hands and saved hundreds of lives in the process. That's why I think it's so important for all of us to take some responsibility for our own safety, no matter where we are, and not just rely on authorities.

 

Speaking of which, I honestly don't feel any "safer" just b/c they are confiscating all liquids on flights. I really don't. And just to clarify, the comment about chap stick was an example. I am not some nit-witted woman who just wants her makeup on the flight. That is NOT what this is about. What it's really about is that, for the future, I don't think this liquid ban is really going to continue to keep us safe. We are just making the mouse smarter, and more resourceful. Someone who is willing to lose their life in order to take someone else's is a really tough enemy to fight. One more time, ladies and gentlemen: We need to find these terrorist groups and stop them altogether! No matter what it takes...

 

I keep wondering, what's to prevent these terrorists from eventually setting their sights on easier targets, like malls, or other highly populated buildings like convention centers? I'm not sure why they keep trying to target airplanes, b/c they've obviously already targeted other transportation systems in the UK and Europe.

 

Even if they need to keep this liquid ban in place for a time, it will NOT solve the problem. And THAT is my main issue with all this hoopla at the airports. More than 700 Million passengers fly each year, and we are spending a huge amount of our resources checking all of them, when the number of terrorists that we are actually screening for is a fraction of that. Call it a needle in a haystack, if you will - why spend so much of our time looking in the haystack, when we could instead focus a good portion of that effort into looking for the whole darn sewing kit.

 

Globaliser, I am sorry that you really have lived through so much of this. But see, that's the thing - I don't think anyone should have to live through that crap! We, meaning the countries of the world that actually do value freedom, need to find the root of the terrorist groups and put an end to them. Isn't that the only way this will really stop?

[CruisinMatt]

But still, many (maybe most) people in the US only experienced that on the other side of their TV screens.

 

How does that make it insignificant? I'm not following your logic.

[billybob123]

Muslims of British descent AND only two recently converted (IIRC). All the others have families who have been involved in Muslim issues and politics for years.

 

PLEEZE!!! Isolated incident, caused by the militia mentality of the White Supremacists, in retalitation for Waco (thank you, Janet Reno). ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with international terror stemming from Jihad.

 

I have edited down your comments here simply to get to the point of my post - I wasn't looking for an argument, and certainly after having read your opinions, I'll "agree to disagree" with you. The main point I was trying to make, and remain to make, is how do you "profile" a "terrorist" when I have given examples (two, in fact) of the "Jihad" (your word) that have attacked, or allegedly planned to attack, are black (Jamaican descent) or white (British descent); another example is Richard Reid - hardly the textbook example of "terrorist-looking". Last time I checked, the way you look and/or your name doesn't necessarily tell anything about you.

 

Is there a "terrorist identification handbook" that I'm missing out on?

 

This all being said, I'm hardly in a lather over anything going on these days - we live in a screwed up world unfortunately, and it seems as though this is something that we're going to have to live with - I doubt it will be "eradicated" in any of our useful lifetimes.

[loungelizard]

I'd really like to know what the driving motivation is for 24 young English born Pakistani Muslims to blow up planes, passengers and themselves...what does it really accomplish and what is it that they really want us to know? Britain left Pakistan in the 1940's so what's the problem? I'm sure their parents and families came to Britain to start a better life for their children and to take advantage of all that the western lifestyle has to offer. Obviously something went dreadfully wrong and now they are all willing to die for their mysterious secret cause.

[Globaliser]

We, meaning the countries of the world that actually do value freedom, need to find the root of the terrorist groups and put an end to them. Isn't that the only way this will really stop?

In an ideal world, yes. But it will take this thread too far off topic to discuss the chances of that happening. Suffice it to say that the price of that for the West would involve us giving up far too much of our way of life.

 

Whether or not I'm right about that, in the meantime we need to put the defences in place. It's too easy for people who fly once a year to say that they'd feel awfully inconvenienced if they couldn't bring a book or an iPod for a 3 hour flight.

 

From my point of view, with the real possibility of other people out there who are still at liberty and who might still try to carry out a liquid explosive attack, I want there to be good physical defences and deterrents when I fly this week, when I fly next week, and when I fly the week after that.

I'm not sure why they keep trying to target airplanes, b/c they've obviously already targeted other transportation systems in the UK and Europe.

It makes good headlines. For some reason, people are not afraid to get into their cars or into buses. They're not afraid to get into trains.

 

But present them with an aircraft, and for some reason a large proportion of the population are convinced that they will die before their flight reaches their destination - despite the evidence that it's much safer than being in a car.

 

And attacking aviation preys on those fears. From the terrorists' point of view, it makes absolute sense.

[Nliedel]

Raytown Lady,

 

You can bring food, but not things like packets of ketchup on board.

[Ekaj]

...what does it really accomplish and what is it that they really want us to know? Obviously something went dreadfully wrong and now they are all willing to die for their mysterious secret cause.

 

Well, not to get into too long a post, and I really don't want to start a debate on any of this, but since you asked.....It's not really a secret cause - what the radical Muslims want is to either convert the world to Islam or, ultimately, wipe us off the face of the earth. Committing acts of terrorism, in their eyes anyway, helps this cause by showing their "power", killing a few of the "infidels", and in some cases, getting revenge. They also believe they will get special rewards for their efforts, and for losing their life in the name of their religion. It also shows us their anger. Many of the suicide terrorists have, for many years, been shown very negative (and false!) propaganda against the Western world, which only fuels their hatred.

 

Below is a link to an interesting article on radical Muslims. There is much more information out there, though, if you just do a search. Not all Muslims fall into the "radical" or terrorist category, of course.

 

http://www.probe.org/content/view/1086/162/#text44

[Ekaj]

In an ideal world, yes. But it will take this thread too far off topic to discuss the chances of that happening. Suffice it to say that the price of that for the West would involve us giving up far too much of our way of life.

 

I still think it's worth fighting for. Do I actually think that radical terrorists will be completely eliminated in our lifetimes? Probably not. But if we do nothing, it will only get worse. We do have fundamentally different views, you and I, and that's ok. We all have the ability and right to fight for what we believe. :)

[greatam]

The main point I was trying to make, and remain to make, is how do you "profile" a "terrorist" when I have given examples (two, in fact) of the "Jihad" (your word) that have attacked, or allegedly planned to attack, are black (Jamaican descent) or white (British descent); another example is Richard Reid - hardly the textbook example of "terrorist-looking". Last time I checked, the way you look and/or your name doesn't necessarily tell anything about you.

 

 

The "white" of British descent were not WHITE (anglo saxon white) at all. They were Pakastanis or multiculturals born in the UK of immigrant parents.

 

The names are usually a dead giveaway.

 

And yes, Richard Reid fit the profile, not only in appearance-Anglo/Jamaican/Pakastani multicultural background, but also age and name. He took a Muslim name-Abdel Rahim. He flew on his British passport with his Anglo name. And had been heavily involved with the "most extreme of the extreme" in his own mosque in the UK. He converted to Islam or started his conversion in prison (which is another hotbed of Islamo fascists).

[Globaliser]

The "white" of British descent were not WHITE (anglo saxon white) at all. They were Pakastanis or multiculturals born in the UK of immigrant parents.

Alas, no.

Sons of the stockbroker belt who converted to Islam

 

ONE was the white, middle-class son of Tory activists.

 

...

 

Dorothea Stewart-Whyte, a regular Methodist Church worshipper who ensured that her son was educated at a well reputed local grammar school, may well have been bewildered by his change of faith.

 

His academic performances at Dr Challoner’s Grammar School were said to have suffered after the death of his father, Douglas, a Tory agent at Westminister, nine years ago. Along with his sister, Heidi, Donald Douglas Stewart-Whyte is believed to have converted to the faith they learnt about from Asian friends.

 

He was born in Eastbourne, the son of a Canadian garage manager and a PE teacher. His half-sister, from his father’s first marriage, is the model Heather Stewart-Whyte, the former wife of Yannick Noah, the French tennis player.

 

Don, 20, changed his name to Abdul Waheed, grew a beard and started wearing traditional Islamic dress. He recently married a Muslim girl in a ceremony in a local mosque.

 

...

But maybe you think that we can safely rely on all of these fanatics to change their names and adopt traditional Islamic dress. Just like the traditional Islamic dress worn by all the hijackers on 11 September 2001.

[loungelizard]

Ekaj`~ Thank you for that very informative article...I learned something. These British born Pakistani terrorists were not born with this hatred though...they had to be brainwashed while they were growing up in the UK. It's one thing to be spoon fed propaganda about the infidels from the west, but you'd think that because they actually lived and worked in a western country that they'd see that all this propaganda is not all true. What scares me the most is their total disregard for human life, including their own. I have to wonder what Allah would say to them as they arrived in heaven expecting their rewards...probably something like..."You did WHAT in my name?!!!" I think Australia had the right idea when they made it very clear that if you wanted to be a citizen there you had to abide my Australian laws first...and not hold the doctrines and laws of your religion above community law. If not, you will be deported immediately.

[loungelizard]

Isn't it interesting that the terrorists had been under surveillence for over year and not one of them had purchased airline tickets and most didn't even have a passport. Certainly they would have been placed on a

"no fly" list, and since most had to wait for passports it was going to be quite some time until they could actually pull off these bombings. The more we learn, the more sketchier this whole plot becomes. Anyway, this is the last I will post on this topic....back to cruising for me!

[greatam]

Alas, no.But maybe you think that we can safely rely on all of these fanatics to change their names and adopt traditional Islamic dress. Just like the traditional Islamic dress worn by all the hijackers on 11 September 2001.

 

ONE (even two) out of 25, I will give you. And no, the Islamic dress has nothing to do with it. I certainly don't expect them to look like bedouins.

 

Mohammed Atta is probably the best example of a terrorist not looking particularly like a terrorist. But the name sure is a dead giveaway. It really is overall appearance-facial features, those mostly scruffy, scraggly beards, carriage, etc., etc., etc. that give most of them away. And in mylimited knowledge, MOST have Muslim names.

 

As noted by you, El Al lives with the threat every day, does their fair share of profiling, but it certainly takes more than a TSA screener to pick out the least obvious terrorists. Why aren't we bringing in military intel types, FBI profilers, military interrogators, people with REAL training who can ask pointed questions? That may help quite a bit. Oh, I forgot, we have Posse Comitatus laws and the ACLU and too many PC politicians. Just can't seem to get around all that stuff.

 

It has been all over US news today that profiling, at least in a limited form, (AND over all the lawsuits to be filed by the ACLU and others), will begin soon. It was heavily implied that the profiling matrix will be in conjunction with the UK. Any definitive word on that from your side of the pond?

[Globaliser]

But the name sure is a dead giveaway.

No, I'm afraid that the name tells you very little. What sort of names might indicate some risk? Arab? Sahel? Sub-Saharan? Muslim sub-continental? Caucasian (in the technical sense, ie from the Caucasus)? Caribbean? There are risks from all of these areas.

 

And if all that a terrorist needs to do to reduce attention is to change one's name and change one's dress, the consequences are obvious.

 

Moreover, there are indications that the terrorists are deliberately recruiting operatives who have no records and have never been of interest to the authorities. Remember that we're talking about taking people out of a pool of millions of innocent and law-abiding Muslims in the UK - and that's before the recruitment of people who neither look, behave or sound like Muslims.

 

If you pay too much attention to people's names and their dress, there are only two certainties: First, you will investigate a lot of people who are as against terrorism as you or I, and whose only connnection to it is that they happen to follow a religion which has been adopted, twisted and perverted by the terrorists. Second, you will take your eye off a lot of people who could be terrorists using an effective disguise, or who could be being used by terrorists.

As noted by you, El Al lives with the threat every day, does their fair share of profiling, but it certainly takes more than a TSA screener to pick out the least obvious terrorists. Why aren't we bringing in military intel types, FBI profilers, military interrogators, people with REAL training who can ask pointed questions? That may help quite a bit. Oh, I forgot, we have Posse Comitatus laws and the ACLU and too many PC politicians. Just can't seem to get around all that stuff.

The real difficult with El Al-style security is not the PC stuff. The real difficulty is that people who won't put up with the current security restrictions are certainly not going to put up with El Al-style security. Part of El Al's defences are to look for those who pose the most risk. But everyone flying El Al gets a lot of attention, way beyond that which a routine passenger is getting even now. Everyone gets searched, everyone gets questioned. And everyone must spend much longer at the airport - those who are squealing about the difficulties now will squeal even more if you always have to come to the airport four hours before your flight.

 

Those who look yearningly at El Al-style security actually seem to want a system where the only people who are bothered by it are other people. They want a system in which they themselves can escape attention, because they know themselves that they are not a risk. But that's not how El Al does it: It would open up so many holes in the defences that it would be pointless.

[greatam]

Be prepared for some VERY weird stuff in the future.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/washington/14rules.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

TSA screeners with psychological profiling training??? Military intel, ex-FBI, trained interrogators (ex cops, etc)-I can see that. But TSA???