Travel and Terrorism...

[Graham]

A quote from Randy

Re: 9/11 Experiences<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000; COLOR: #000000" SIZE=1><!-- google_ad_section_start -->Like most of America / World - I sat in front of my Television all day... Totally numb.
I had just flown in from a race weekend at Laguna Seca the previous day.
.
It was my wife's and my 25th wedding anniversary that day (9/11/1976) - What a way to remember that eh?
.
I've also not set foot in another airplane since.
Not that I'm worried that a terrorist would blow up the plane with his shoes or underwear - but because the world has come totally off the hook with the way they are "trying to secure us"..
Meanwhile - I drive or take a train to wherever I need to go. I won't go into it any more in this thread - maybe if someone starts another..<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Randy, as per your request, here goes my rant: -

Whenever I fly (which is a few times a year, but not a huge amount), I am sickened by the excessive security in place. Arrive at the airport THREE HOURS before an international flight, only to sit in a bar for two hours waiting for your plane, IF you are lucky enough to get through the 8 mile long queue at security.

So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the winners and losers in this "War Against Terror"...

The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise, this much we know. However, I take a diametrically opposed view to Government / Police / Army etc...

Right now there is only one winner - the Terrorist. They have forced us to change the way we live our daily lives in order to be "safer". This suits Government, because they can much easier control a cowed populace rather than one that is self determined.

If we took a straw poll (over to you here Randy, as I wouldn't know how to set up a poll on here) I would ask two questions: -

1. Do you accept the current security levels in place for travel and believe them to be of benefit, despite the incumberance it places on your daily life?

2. Would you accept a heavy reduction in the level of security (Police, CCTV, Army etc...) with the associated potential for more attacks?

I know my answer. I will take a higher risk for lower security levels. If we all said "ENOUGH" to the politicians (and the media, who drive the hype) then we can get back to a more normal life, without the levels of control in place.

Over here at the Labour conference of a few years ago, an old man in his 70's (or 80's, I can't recall) was heckling the Prime Minister (a certain Tony Bliar). He was surrounded by policemen, and arrested under the new Anti -Terrorism act....

Give me back my freedoms, ditch all the huge legislation regarding Terrorism. Send a message to the bombers: "You can get us every now and then, but frankly we don't care, We'll take a little collaterall damage along the way, but our way of life is too important for you to fuck us over anyway."
Then we will be the winners...

Apologies to any of you guys who had people in the WTC when they went down. I am calling this as I see it. We now live under a cloud of doom ready for the next terrorist attack. Well screw that, I'm going to live my life in the assumption that if and when it comes, I'll take my chances. Personal freedoms are worth a little risk....

Lets start the debate....

Graham.

 

[Keith]

No debate here Graham - absolutely spot on mate.

"For there is nothing to fear but fear itself" (FDR)

Few of us have the opportunity to 'retaliate' against mindless acts of terrorist action but one sure way is for an event of this nature NOT to change anything in our habits or lifestyles.

Any other action feeds terrorism and as Graham says, gives the opportunity for Govt and their shadowy 'Agencies' to exercise more control over peoples daily lives.

I remember 2 years ago meeting some charming Americans who had sailed here via the (then new) QMII from New York. They were astounded that there were not even customs officials present at the QEII Cruise Terminal Arrivals let alone security. (Any security present was mainly to stop the crew legging it!)

They went on to explain that when they left New York, there were heavily armed police on all the bridges and on the docks and it made them feel "safe".

The kind of terrorist attack that is prevented by the presence of an armed policeman is not one to worry about I reassured them, but they still didn't really get it. If a determined terrorist wishes to blow you up (and there are great odds against that) then he will. End Of, and there is not a thing we can do except show defiance that we will not be intimidated.

I did not know anyone in the TT and I have been blown up by an IRA bomb thrown through a restaurant window in Walton St London which exploded whilst I was driving by and know what rational fear tastes like. The image of the TT will stay with me forever, especially when I hear a low flying jet near an airport, but it will not stop me flying or doing anything different. It's also a way of showing some solidarity with those who are dying and have died to 'keep me safe'.

 

[Jack]

No debate here Graham - absolutely spot on mate.

"For there is nothing to fear but fear itself" (FDR)

Few of us have the opportunity to 'retaliate' against mindless acts of terrorist action but one sure way is for an event of this nature NOT to change anything in our habits or lifestyles.

Any other action feeds terrorism and as Graham says, gives the opportunity for Govt and their shadowy 'Agencies' to exercise more control over peoples daily lives.

I remember 2 years ago meeting some charming Americans who had sailed here via the (then new) QMII from New York. They were astounded that there were not even customs officials present at the QEII Cruise Terminal Arrivals let alone security. (Any security present was mainly to stop the crew legging it!)

They went on to explain that when they left New York, there were heavily armed police on all the bridges and on the docks and it made them feel "safe".

The kind of terrorist attack that is prevented by the presence of an armed policeman is not one to worry about I reassured them, but they still didn't really get it. If a determined terrorist wishes to blow you up (and there are great odds against that) then he will. End Of, and there is not a thing we can do except show defiance that we will not be intimidated.

I did not know anyone in the TT and I have been blown up by an IRA bomb thrown through a restaurant window in Walton St London which exploded whilst I was driving by and know what rational fear tastes like. The image of the TT will stay with me forever, especially when I hear a low flying jet near an airport, but it will not stop me flying or doing anything different. It's also a way of showing some solidarity with those who are dying and have died to 'keep me safe'.

Right on Keith! A VERY STRONG retaliation, in kind, or worse for any act is required.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

If they had hauled the christmas "underwear bomber" off the plane, (At that point they knew he had explosives in his shorts) taken him to a remote part of the airport and filmed the detonation of the explosives and him. Put the film on all the networks. I would venture to say this would do a lot to slow and eventually stop terrorism.

 

[Ian Anderson]

I remember out in Rhodesia way back in the good old days.

The powers that be had been advised / decided or whatever that all aircraft would be targeted.

So they decided the easiest way to ensure only legitimate luggage was put on board they took all luggage out to the side of the plane. As each passenger walked out they had to point out their case and it was loaded.

Well I saw a delay of about an hour when they tried to find out who's case was left on the tarmac and would not allow the plane to fly. Strange everyone on the balcony knew - one bloke said "look my mum never pointed to her case and she's so deaf she will not hear any announcements - she'd also had assistance onto the plane!"

Next time I watched them load the last person in the queue was a young male (20 - 25) - he had obviously realised the delay was about to happen so casually said all the remaining cases were his! (Including a rather nice pink one!) Plane took off on time

Next week guess what the authorities decided it was not worth the agro! All luggage loaded straight ont aircraft.

Also back then all farmers were armed 24/7 as there were attacks on their homesteads (easy targets and Police could be hours in responding) So they went around with a pistol in a holster, women pistol in handbag, FN slung over shoulder etc.

Then they decided the banks were a terrorist target and insisted that they have armed security at the door.
Remember above - all farmers were armed - they also visited banks weekly for wage rolls. Problem do you let an armed person into a bank - answer Yes - eventually the armed door guards were done away with and a doorman job created to assist the customers (armed or not)

So I agree with the above - worst thing to do it to change your lifestyle

Relax the security and get things moving again

Ian

 

[BenL]

If they had hauled the christmas "underwear bomber" off the plane, (At that point they knew he had explosives in his shorts) taken him to a remote part of the airport and filmed the detonation of the explosives and him. Put the film on all the networks. I would venture to say this would do a lot to slow and eventually stop terrorism.

He was already planning to commit suicide by blowing himself up, all that does is make him even more of a martyr in the eyes of the terrorists.

 

[Nick]

Sorry guys I can only report it as I found it.

Just got back from my hols to Italy had to fly from Manchester to Paris and then Paris to Rome and back. I was expecting huge delays, went through Manchester check in 2nd in queue at check in desk straight through the new X-ray machine ½ hour wait before boarding and onto plane.
At Paris for the flight connection it meant coming out of the arrivals terminal and into a new terminal again walked straight through.

On the way back it was much the same, by the time I had sprayed myself from all the cologne samples in duty free unfortunately one of which turned out to be perfume, it was time to board.

I was expecting queues hours of waiting possible missing flight connections but to my surprise it just did not happen.

 

[Jason Lindsey]

He was already planning to commit suicide by blowing himself up, all that does is make him even more of a martyr in the eyes of the terrorists.

Apart from the fact he didn't succeed in his 'mission'. He failed and still lost his life.

There is currently no deterrent to stop these people, they just laugh at us.........

Al Wohlstrom, you are spot on, majority of the people i know are tired of current laws protecting these insane people.

Jas

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

He was already planning to commit suicide by blowing himself up, all that does is make him even more of a martyr in the eyes of the terrorists.

It also makes him a failure and an object lesson.

 

[Keith]

If they had hauled the christmas "underwear bomber" off the plane, (At that point they knew he had explosives in his shorts) taken him to a remote part of the airport and filmed the detonation of the explosives and him. Put the film on all the networks. I would venture to say this would do a lot to slow and eventually stop terrorism.

Very much doubt it Al. It would have probably encouraged them to redouble their efforts mate. Anyone who would happily (and joyously) take their own life and those of innocent women and children around them without a second thought will not be touched by that kind of logic and they use this fact as a weapon against you.

 

[Dalton Veitch]

Graham, I've only just caught up with your post, and I absolutely agree.
Here in Oz the Federal Govt. used the terrorism threat to pass a number of laws giving the ploice more powers and reducing our rights and freedom. They love any excuse to be able to control us more. A win for the terrorists? Of course.

I really object to having to not carry water bottles over a certain size (takes us about 14 hours to fly to the rest of the world, and I like having a water bottle), no sharp objects, etc. on planes now. You can kill with your bare hands, for goodness sake!!

I flew to pick up an interesting car interstate, and was carrying a few simple tools in my cabin luggage (would hate to be stranded by the side of the road for something fixable by screwdriver, pliers, a bit of wire, etc.) and was pulled out by Security at the airport.

Stuff the security as presently imposed on us.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Personally I have no problem with airport security and I fly quite a bit.
It does mean that because of my shoulder replacement I get delayed by setting the metal detectors off, but so be it.

Like Dalton I do object to our Government and others using "anti terrorist"
laws to exercise more control over the way we live. It seems more and more that Government want to enforce all manner of laws to "protect us" if they changed the word protect to control they would be more honest.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Very much doubt it Al. It would have probably encouraged them to redouble their efforts mate. Anyone who would happily (and joyously) take their own life and those of innocent women and children around them without a second thought will not be touched by that kind of logic and they use this fact as a weapon against you.

OK, How about wrapping him in a pigskin prior to detonating him? That should have some ill effect on the here after prospects.

 

[Mike Christian]

Hey, no one leaves this planet alive. I just wish our governments would allow us to accept some risk. I hate it when someone else tells me what they think is good for my best interests.

 

[Cliff Beer]

I have no problem with the additional security measures at airports. I fly quite a bit for both personal and business purposes, and don't find it to be much of an inconvenience.

I do appreciate Graham's logic - if a few crazies with guns and shoe/underwear bombs can inconvenience the other 6 billion of us with more security measures, then, yes, they have "won" something there I suppose. And that would all be fine and no big deal except for two important phenomenon:

1. It's not a matter of risk to personal safety v. level of security (and the inconvenience that goes with that). It's a matter of potential collapse of the financial markets v. level of security (and the inconvenience of that) that really matters. Yes, it was tragic to lose 3,000+ lives in the WTC bombing, but the larger tragedy was the dramatic implosion of the financial markets and commerce in general that went on in the two years following 9/11. People lost their savings, people lost jobs, the whole commercial cycle went into the toilet and didn't really recover until about 2004. That was very painful, and that was exactly what the terrorists were hoping to achieve (why do you think they chose the World Trade Center?), and they achieved that goal. If there's another terrorist event on the same scale as the WTC, well, guess what, the same thing is going to happen again and that's the last thing we need with a faltering economy as-is. If some heightened security measures can potentially avert that, then it's an easy choice for me.

2. The advent of small scale (ie. "backpack") nukes makes terrorists not just an annoyance, but a very real threat to the safety of very large numbers of people and, again, the entire World Economy. Can you imagine how many people might die, and how big the economic collapse would be, if a backpack nuke went off in downtown NYC or LA? There's a fair chance we would all be living in caves fighting over scraps of meat in the ensuing period. Doubt that? Wait and see. The volatility of our financial markets and economic cycle is such there's very little (if anything) to prop it up in the event of a major terrorist event.

Just my $.02. You won't find me complaining about having to take my shoes off at the airport security line.

 

[Graham]

I have no problem with the additional security measures at airports. I fly quite a bit for both personal and business purposes, and don't find it to be much of an inconvenience.

I do appreciate Graham's logic - if a few crazies with guns and shoe/underwear bombs can inconvenience the other 6 billion of us with more security measures, then, yes, they have "won" something there I suppose. And that would all be fine and no big deal except for two important phenomenon:

1. It's not a matter of risk to personal safety v. level of security (and the inconvenience that goes with that). It's a matter of potential collapse of the financial markets v. level of security (and the inconvenience of that) that really matters. Yes, it was tragic to lose 3,000+ lives in the WTC bombing, but the larger tragedy was the dramatic implosion of the financial markets and commerce in general that went on in the two years following 9/11. People lost their savings, people lost jobs, the whole commercial cycle went into the toilet and didn't really recover until about 2004. That was very painful, and that was exactly what the terrorists were hoping to achieve (why do you think they chose the World Trade Center?), and they achieved that goal. If there's another terrorist event on the same scale as the WTC, well, guess what, the same thing is going to happen again and that's the last thing we need with a faltering economy as-is. If some heightened security measures can potentially avert that, then it's an easy choice for me.

2. The advent of small scale (ie. "backpack") nukes makes terrorists not just an annoyance, but a very real threat to the safety of very large numbers of people and, again, the entire World Economy. Can you imagine how many people might die, and how big the economic collapse would be, if a backpack nuke went off in downtown NYC or LA? There's a fair chance we would all be living in caves fighting over scraps of meat in the ensuing period. Doubt that? Wait and see. The volatility of our financial markets and economic cycle is such there's very little (if anything) to prop it up in the event of a major terrorist event.

Just my $.02. You won't find me complaining about having to take my shoes off at the airport security line.

Cliff, I understand and take on board your points. But is this the tail wagging the dog...?

WHY do the international markets collapse after these events??? If one is to be completely dispassionate for a moment, the loss of 3,500 lives from a pool of 6 billion is tiny. More people have died in the Pakistan floods in the last few days, but the international markets haven't collapsed, Ergo, it CANNOT be about the loss of life.

It is the link between these events and how the media then whip up the storm that then causes panic through the markets which then causes a domino effect etc etc...

So in a very simplistic way, why can we not separate the one event from the other mentally. I know I can. When I step on a plane, I don't spend six hours in blind panic worrying that there may be a terrorist on board.

I simply do not understand why the mighty financial markets of the world crumble after these events. It is akin to the Elephant being scared of a very (tiny) Mouse.

I KNOW that I am oversimplifying the issue here, but it is a valid point.

As to your second point of the "backpack" nuke, then yes I agree with you to a point.
However, I am not aware of anyone ever having been found with a Backpack nuke (and please guys correct me if I'm wrong here)...

This brings into play a secondary issue which forms part of the whole problem that we have in the developed world.

We used to be able to practice selective screening. In some of the councils in London, where crime was very bad, Racial profiling showed that over 85% of all crimes committed within that area were from one racial group. The Police, armed with that information were allowed to use Stop and Search powers on that particular Racial group, whilst using the powers less on other Ethnic groups. This caused a HUGE issue over here....Sooooo Stop and Search had to be evened out across the WHOLE of the racial spectrum, even though the crime rates pointed to one particular group....

This is an example of what we have now globally. A Muslim woman may pass through passport control wearing a Burka... Racial profiling is now HEAVILY frowned upon and is seen as racist...Last time I checked I thought we had a separation of Church and State. I can't wear a Burka through passport control, Ergo we are allowing peoples cultural beliefs to more important than our laws. The Burka is not even a RELIGIOUS requirement, it is purely cultural...

We have through political correctness lost our greatest weapon against the terrorist, the ability to use our skills in a selective, targeted way to get the best from our Police and border forces.

Slight thread drift there, but hey what can ya do

Graham.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Hey, no one leaves this planet alive. I just wish our governments would allow us to accept some risk. I hate it when someone else tells me what they think is good for my best interests.

I agree, although if I have a choice, I would like to decide my own departure time from the planet, or do it naturally. All this "change" is big government and less choice.

 

[Leon]

I fly in and out of the MiddleEast every 35 days and have for the last 3 1/2 years and the funny thing is the worst place for getting through security is the bloody transit Lounges in Australia. I'm at aloss as to why they feel the need to check you after you have got off the plane and are going to get back on the same Plane. And you have to take the tioletries given to you by the airline out of the bag They supplied and put them in a see through bag. And the slackest security??? you guessed it the airports in the Middle East, which if I'm not Misstaken is where most of the Terorists come from. But Hey, Flying is still safer than walking down your own street and if a little inconvenience make it a little safer I'll live with it. Leonmac

 

[Keith]

The basic philosophy of any control action is simple. There must be a full circle of control with no gaps in procedure. Gaps can be and are exploited by the 'nasties' hence the seemingly ludicrous double checking scenario you describe.

On the human side, you cannot give the security operators any discretion because interpretations will vary therefore the hard and fast rule is: check everyone everywhere all the time - be suspicious of everything and everyone.

If people know they are to be checked, their reactions in a line waiting to be cleared are very illuminating and very often studying these reactions with either covert CCTV or discreetly with the MKI eyeball by an experienced operator will flag up any concerns before they even get to the checkpoint.

As for slack security in the Middle East - I had to smile at that observation...

 

[Leon]

Hey Keith, You are right, and as I said if it makes it a little safer I'm happy, on a lighter note have you ever been alittle anoyed when you know you carry on is a tiny bit over weight and the "Fat Chick" at the counter says, "You'll have to leave something behind Sir" I don't know why this only seems to happen in NZ and Aussie (for me anyway) and then you fly with the same Airline out of Mumbai or Bangladesh or some other 3rd world country (I go to all the Nice spots) and your standing in the ile waiting for some local trying to put a 42" TV or a small refridgerator in the Friggen overhead locker. I thought I'd do the decent thing one time and help this small Indian lady put her bag in the locker, I'm a reasonably strong guy and I bloody near put my back out getting this thing off the ground, I was just thankful I wasn't sitting under it. I love air travel. Leonmac, We should start a thread "Funny Flight Storries"