That wannabee terrorist

colintrav

Does anyone else not find it highly amusing that a wannabee terrorist actually managed to get on board with a so called bomb , yet the man actually managed to get off the plane in one piece and the other passengers never kicked the living s.hit out of the bloke ..


Did the passengers actually brick it and never thought of takin actiuons into there own hands ..


Whilst we have been sold and told many times of the actions of flight 93 ,, makes you wonder ...

missmarple

No because passengers aren't necessarily raving lunatics, do you work for the MOD? Do you really know what happened? Or did you read it in the Daily Star or perhaps the Sun?

Violence isn't the answer, the passengers extinguished the fire and restrained the Nigerian - so yes they did take 'it' into 'their own hands'.

I'm sure this sort of political discussion isn't right for the Crudcatcher, do some research first.

bails87

How long til somebody says "If that happened in this country the other passengers would have been done for assault, and the terrorist would have been given a Bentley, on the NHS, with taxpayers money, before stealing my job and claiming benefits"? :roll:

jay12

bails87 wrote:

How long til somebody says "If that happened in this country the other passengers would have been done for assault, and the terrorist would have been given a Bentley, on the NHS, with taxpayers money, before stealing my job and claiming benefits"? :roll:

thats what is very annoying. if a burglar came into your house and you hit him you would probably be in as much trouble as the burglar

Briggo

jay12 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

How long til somebody says "If that happened in this country the other passengers would have been done for assault, and the terrorist would have been given a Bentley, on the NHS, with taxpayers money, before stealing my job and claiming benefits"? :roll:

thats what is very annoying. if a burglar came into your house and you hit him you would probably be in as much trouble as the burglar

You can defend your property with reasonable force, i.e. hit him to make him leg it or knock him out but then dont repeatedly smash his face in, in anger/revenge.

Anonymous

i think the passengers of the plane in question did the right thing. as far as i can tell, he was restrained, the fire he had managed to start was extinguished and the bloke is behind bars.

i love that the idiot couldnt make himself explode though, what a mong. trust a man who teaches this subject as part of his living when he tells you it isnt hard to make yourself go bang.

i could also teach you how to find a bloke like that before he gets on to the plane in the first place but no one wants their civil liberties being messed with eh.

whyamihere

sheepsteeth wrote:

i could also teach you how to find a bloke like that before he gets on to the plane in the first place but no one wants their civil liberties being messed with eh.

Damn right.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

Anonymous

whyamihere wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

i could also teach you how to find a bloke like that before he gets on to the plane in the first place but no one wants their civil liberties being messed with eh.

Damn right.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

i completely understand this, it makes perfect sense and i share some modicum of sympathy for its ethos. but it was first said a long time ago and i dont think it is quite as true today as it once was.

i dont know how it can be done but there has to be a point at which security and liberty are balanced in such a way that you can get on a plane without someone trying to blow it up.

whyamihere

sheepsteeth wrote:

whyamihere wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

i could also teach you how to find a bloke like that before he gets on to the plane in the first place but no one wants their civil liberties being messed with eh.

Damn right.

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

i completely understand this, it makes perfect sense and i share some modicum of sympathy for its ethos. but it was first said a long time ago and i dont think it is quite as true today as it once was.

i dont know how it can be done but there has to be a point at which security and liberty are balanced in such a way that you can get on a plane without someone trying to blow it up.

Consider how likely people blowing planes up would be if, instead of restricting everything, restricting our freedom, affecting our lives, we'd just given the terrorists the finger and carried on as we'd previously been doing. What they're wanting is disruption of our society, causing changes through terror. That's exactly what we've given them. Blowing planes up or flying them into buildings is obviously a great way to get a reaction.

So much stuff was changed in the security arena after the twin towers were hit. Very little was needed. Previously, if someone hijacked a plane, you'd go to some country you didn't want to go to, then get released and transported home. Maybe a hostage would e taken, occasionally one or two people would be killed. Annoying, yes, but you'd generally get out alive. People didn't want to risk stopping the hijackers and potentially making the situation worse with greater loss of life, so they didn't. The hijackers in 2001 used this, which is why they were able to take a plane using pathetic weapons. People just sat and waited and that's not going to happen again. This most recent event shows this, another passenger went and tackled the guy trying to blow up the plane. He'd decided he was likely to die anyway, so may as well take some action. Similar thing happened on Flight 93. They died, but saved the lives of the people at the target.

Reasonable precautions were in place before 2001. You couldn't take a gun or a knife or a few sticks of TNT on board. The only change that should have been made would be to reinforce the cockpit doors so that the pilots couldn't be accessed. Instead, we went mental, even though there's no chance of such an attack ever happening again, because the other passengers won't allow it. Don't forget, air travel is still the safest way to travel in terms of deaths per mile. Out of proportion reactions help nobody.

Tel39

bails87 wrote:

How long til somebody says "If that happened in this country the other passengers would have been done for assault, and the terrorist would have been given a Bentley, on the NHS, with taxpayers money, before stealing my job and claiming benefits"? :roll:

I think you'll find its already happened in a fashion. The Afghans who hijacked a plane to Stanstead a few years ago were allowed to stay here, some anyway if I'm not mistaken.

One even reportedly getting a job as a baggage handler at Heathrow! You couldn't make it up! No doubt others who stayed claimed benefits and used the NHS which they paid a big fat zero into. Obviously should've put them on the next plane out but no this is soft touch Britain where we let any Tom, Dick or Harry in.

jay12

Briggo wrote:

jay12 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

How long til somebody says "If that happened in this country the other passengers would have been done for assault, and the terrorist would have been given a Bentley, on the NHS, with taxpayers money, before stealing my job and claiming benefits"? :roll:

thats what is very annoying. if a burglar came into your house and you hit him you would probably be in as much trouble as the burglar

You can defend your property with reasonable force, i.e. hit him to make him leg it or knock him out but then dont repeatedly smash his face in, in anger/revenge.

sweet 8)

bails87

Tel39 wrote:

this is soft touch Britain where we let any Tom, Dick or Harry in.

DING DING DING

We have a winner!

Second place goes to jay12 :P

WORKING immigrants have been branded as 'scandalously self-sufficient' after £10bn in benefits went unclaimed last year

Tel39

bails87 wrote:

Tel39 wrote:

this is soft touch Britain where we let any Tom, Dick or Harry in.

DING DING DING

We have a winner!

Second place goes to jay12 :P

WORKING immigrants have been branded as 'scandalously self-sufficient' after £10bn in benefits went unclaimed last year

Cheers fella, gratefully received. Just saying what I imagine every hardworking taxpayer thinks about those that pay nothing in but get everything handed on a plate to them if they arrive here with a sob story or hijack a plane even!


Those liberal tinted specs you wear must play havoc with your eyesight 8)

bails87

I'm a hard-working taxpayer thankyou very much. And so is the guy who was working as a baggage handler!

And yes, the glasses are wonderful, they make that £2.5billion net benefit to the public purse from migrant workers all the easier to count. Bloody immigrants, coming over here, paying for our schools, who do they think they are eh?

Northwind

sheepsteeth wrote:

i could also teach you how to find a bloke like that before he gets on to the plane in the first place but no one wants their civil liberties being messed with eh.

If your answer isn't a whole body image scan, you and me are about to have an argument

Northwind

Tel39 wrote:

One even reportedly getting a job as a baggage handler at Heathrow! You couldn't make it up!

No, actually, they did make it up He was actually working as a cleaner, in a BA office near heathrow but not on the airport or within its security cordon, with absolutely no security or air-side access. But naturally the Sun doesn't let facts get in the way of a good story

One thing which is forgotten is that they didn't actually want to take the plane to the UK, they demanded it be flown to Geneva but the pilots didn't know the approaches so suggested London. Another is that all 9 hijackers were jailed- the succesful asylum claims which the press made such a racket about at the time were all passengers not hijackers.

bails87 wrote:

And yes, the glasses are wonderful, they make that £2.5billion net benefit to the public purse from migrant workers all the easier to count. Bloody immigrants, coming over here, paying for our schools, who do they think they are eh?

Ah, do you remember that a few years ago, when Immigrant Watch launched independant research to "prove the cost to the taxpayer of immigration" then a year later quietly launched figures that "proved that immigrants don't contribute enough" after even their hooky figures showed a net benefit? I loved that.

ramemtbers

Hes that guy you just wanna punch sooo hard.....

Tel39

Northwind wrote:

Tel39 wrote:

One even reportedly getting a job as a baggage handler at Heathrow! You couldn't make it up!

No, actually, they did make it up

Hm well I stand to be corrected but was sure it was in the news a couple of years after the actual plane hijack that maybe not all but certainly a few and their families were allowed asylum here. Of course after dragging it through the 'human rights' legal process. Not really the point if one or any got jobs as baggage handlers or whatever, it was wrong and they should've been chucked out at the first opportunty.

Northwind

Well, that's less clearcut, personally I disagree, their asylum claims were iron clad and there was no real doubt their lives would be in danger if sent back. Bottom line for me is that you can't invade a country saying "These guys are evil, we'll overthrow them" if you're sending that country's enemies back to them to die. But I get why people would say otherwise obviously. Seems to me that they were driven to what they did, and it was right to take that into account, but that's just my opinion. Though they also entirely deserved the punishment.

Anyway, bit of a derail

colintrav

IMO why would you let any person live who is willing to take your life ...

It's kill or be killed ..

bails87

colintrav wrote:

IMO why would you let any person live who is willing to take your life ...

It's kill or be killed ..

Eh? The recent syringe bomber, yes he was trying to kill people. But the Afghan ones we're talking about were 'peaceful'. They didn't set out to hurt anyone, just to escape from Afghanistan.

Northwind

colintrav wrote:

IMO why would you let any person live who is willing to take your life ...

It's kill or be killed ..

Obviously it isn't. Because he is alive, and so are they. I think the passengers who intervened deserve the absolute highest admiration for what they did, both in defending themselves and in not going too far. That's true heroism. Though it does look like they didn't actually make any difference, they couldn't have known that.

If you're talking about the hijackers, then it's even more obvious that it's not kill or be killed, since they took no lives, and gave themselves up. But if you do believe that it's kill or be killed, then apply that to them- they say they feared for their lives, so time to kill or be killed.

Anonymous

Terrorism didn’t start in 2001, its not a new thing.

We were talking about blowing planes up (welcome to the government watch list bikeradar) and it is a simple truth that with the removal of a couple of civil liberties, aircraft terror can be stopped.

True, a guy tackled the worlds most inept terrorist but what if he hadn’t? What if everyone was afraid, you’re relying on an uncertain parameter and putting the responsibility of air security firmly in the lap of the passenger, im not sure this is going to work.

whyamihere wrote:

Don't forget, air travel is still the safest way to travel in terms of deaths per mile. Out of proportion reactions help nobody

as far as im concerned if a few civil liberties have to be removed to save one person, someones father, brother, son uncle etc etc then it is a price completely worth paying. You’re missing the point by quite some way and to suggest the loss of even a single life is acceptable in any circumstance where it can be avoided is abhorrent.

It is the simple fact that because a few extra precautions weren’t in place that another attempt was made on an international flight. Your preferred method of leaving things as they are doesn’t seem to be doing a lot for the safety of air flight.

You say yourself that blowing planes up is a great way of getting a reaction, so why not do whatever it takes to stop this being an option.

You are a pretty Fucking sorry individual if you believe in everything you have written.

Northwind

So what's your solution Sheeps? This guy's bomb didn't set of metal detectors, and was small enough and apparently concealed enough that a pat down most likely wouldn't have found it either. Not sure if a millimeter-wave body scan would have picked it up, I'm interested to find out. The measures that are in place seem to have been effective in that they made him use a complex and low powered bomb, and a less than ideal method to detonate it, which probably wouldn't have been the case 10 years ago. But is it really possible to stop all attacks?

The main trouble is, if you make planes impossible to blow up, they'll just move elsewhere. Planes are dramatic, but you can't stop terrorism by stopping plane bombings, all you can do is move it elsewhere.

FWIW I think the opposition to these body scanners is mainly pretty daft, you have to submit to more personal searching as it is. I think I'd rather be body scanned than have my nuts weighed again I think it's a step in the right direction, less invasive, faster, more effective security.

Anonymous

i could tell you but then i would have to kill you.

as it happens, i think the body scans are the single best option and as mentioned, a whole lot kinder to your civil liberties than being felt up. that said, if the person had been examined properly or at all (dont forget not everyone is), it would be difficult to pass security with something attached to your body.

Northwind

True enough, but then they're saying he had only 80 grams of the explosive which would be very compact, plus the small syringe to be a detonator. It's not hard to see ways you could get small stuff like that through a scan. Especially if you've got more than one person.

Anonymous

agreed and although im not suggesting everyone should spread their obvious for a quick investigation, it'd certainly stop folk doing it eh?

i know id get my sphincter out if it meant everyone else had to and it guaranteed i wouldnt be blown up mid air. its just a bum hole, we all have one.

or we could use body scanning. or the other thing that i would have had to kill you if you found out (particle detection) would have found the culprits but add a fair bit of time to your cueing up time.

whyamihere

I may have expressed a few ideas poorly...

sheepsteeth wrote:

Terrorism didn’t start in 2001, its not a new thing.

No, I'm fully aware of this. 2001 did, in my opinion, signal the start of the gigantic overreaction. Previously, of course measures were taken against the threat of terrorism, but they were rational, proportional measures.

Example: Plane was hijacked because a man with a box cutter could walk up to the open cockpit door and threaten the pilot into relinquishing his seat.

Sensible response: Lock and reinforce cockpit doors

Irrational, yet adopted response: Invade Afghanistan

Terrorism is seen as a bogeyman, a way of forcing through crap kneejerk legislation which harms more than it helps. The terrorism legislation takes us closer to totalitarianism. It's a useful excuse for a government to watch its people (excessive CCTV, ID cards) or bring in other ideas that would normally be instantly shot down (detention without charge for x days).

If I'm honest, much of my ill feeling about the steps taken stems from my view that the new laws and restrictions are sliding us further towards totalitarianism. I question whether the people championing these new measures even believe themselves that they will help to save more lives, or if they really are nothing more than an excuse to watch us more.

As for the erosion of civil liberties saving lives. Obviously I'd like to see an end to any activity which causes loss of life. You have to agree that the threat of terrorism is being knocked out of proportion though.



According to this source (I haven't checked the accuracy, though I believe it's about right) in the year where the most lives were lost to terrorism internationally, 3200 lives were taken. According to the US Census Bureau, around 6000 people die EVERY HOUR.

That's pretty easy to argue against, as this is murder rather than the natural deaths which will mostly account for the 6000 per hour number. So let's look at murder. Murder in New York City peaked in 1990 at 2605 (source). The deaths as a result of terrorism were a great tragedy which should never have happened. However, so were all the other deaths from murder. The difference is that the terrorist attacks were seen as an attack on the country rather than on people. This is a stupid idea though, as without the people a country is just a pile of rocks.

I could go on, but the basic idea is that there are many things far more likely to kill you than terrorism which haven't had the same kind of reaction. Using roads for instance...

I'm definitely not saying that the threat should be entirely ignored (I know that's how it seemed in my original post, I badly worded it, and for that I apologise). Action should be taken to prevent a recurrence, but it should be proportional to the act it's in response to. The attacks in 2001 were a huge shock to everyone in the world, and especially to America who had previously seen themselves as approaching untouchable. What I am saying is that terrorism aims to change/destroy our society by causing fear. The over the top measures that have been taken, in my opinion, help propagate the feeling of fear, and so aren't tackling terrorism at all, more helping it in its actual aim. If I could see that the measures taken actually were to increase people's security, then I may be more supportive, no matter that Franklin said. Unfortunately, I really can't.

Anonymous

i might have to agree with the afghan comment,

i understand that there are more likely causes of death than terrorism but there is a huge difference between murder (or any other cause of death) and terrorism.

terrorism is an attack on a country, it seeks to shake the very foundation of a countrys people and it works. when a murder happens, it affects many people on all sorts of levels. when a terrorist attack happens it affects an entire nation.

i dont know why but it is the way it is.

as for the whole government wanting to watch us more i dont see the problem, im not sure how interesting my day to day normal law abiding goings on are or what effect having them watched has on my life?

Northwind

sheepsteeth wrote:

i know id get my sphincter out if it meant everyone else had to and it guaranteed i wouldnt be blown up mid air. its just a bum hole, we all have one.

or we could use body scanning. or the other thing that i would have had to kill you if you found out (particle detection) would have found the culprits but add a fair bit of time to your cueing up time.

I would say, on balance, that I'd generally prefer to take the train Plus, the environmental impact of flying's bad enough without adding 2.14 billion disposable rubber gloves...

I just googled particle detection and it seems like it's only useful if you're travelling by Large Hadron Collider?

whyamihere

sheepsteeth wrote:

i understand that there are more likely causes of death than terrorism but there is a huge difference between murder (or any other cause of death) and terrorism.

terrorism is an attack on a country, it seeks to shake the very foundation of a countrys people and it works. when a murder happens, it affects many people on all sorts of levels. when a terrorist attack happens it affects an entire nation.

i dont know why but it is the way it is.

as for the whole government wanting to watch us more i dont see the problem, im not sure how interesting my day to day normal law abiding goings on are or what effect having them watched has on my life?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on these points.

I feel that terrorism shouldn't be placed on a higher plane than pure murder. I know it is, but I don't agree with that. I do accept I'm in the minority though.

As for why I don't want to be watched: Why should people be allowed to watch me? In certain areas where violent crime is more likely I can accept it (though I never like cameras watching me). Cashpoints for example, where the opportunity exists to steal all the money someone has by watching what their PIN s then punching them and taking their card. What I don't like is having cameras on every corner where they're not serving any specific purpose.