Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
argive99

Airline Security???

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

This is a must read. It shows both the evil of Islamic Terrorism and how it is being assisted by the PC culture we now live in. It is almost surreal reading this Wall Street Woman's piece. Has the world gone insane?

Here is the Little Green Footballs link where I saw it:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...the_Skies_Again

Here is the Women's Wall Street Link:

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/articl...1&articleid=711

Highlights (actually lowlights):

*Groups of Middle Eastern men are booking cross country and other long term flights.

*They are booking these flights with one way destinations

*Once in the air, they are orchestrating trips to the restrooms and are conglomerating by the rest rooms. They are giving each other hand and eye signals. They are up to something.

*Other passangers are terrified and appeal to flight attentandants but the attendants who are aware are helpless to do anything.

*Air marshals on board who are also aware are forbidden from taking any pre-emptive action. They can only respond to and "event."

*Airlines air forbidden from anti-discrimination rules to question more than two middle easterners per flight. Ossama Bin Laden himself could be the third and he could walk on board without even being looked at.

*FBI agents suspect that these are training missions as the Jihadis are planning to assemble small bombs once in flight. Components of these bombs are brough on board and assembled via tactical teams en route.

*No arrests were made in this particular case even though all 14 middle eastern men were detained and all were questioned and all had Syrian passports. None of them had American criminal records.

*The airlines attitude was "matter of fact" and lethargic. In fact, all major airlines have been sued by the Bush Adminstration for "discriminating" against middle easterners. All have settled multi-million dollar suits out of court.

*The major media is almost completely quiet about all of this.

And I can't help but comment on the Women's Wall Street.com statement:

"The WWS Editorial Team debated long and hard about how to handle this information and ultimately we decided it was something that should be shared. "

They had to debate "long and hard" about this?!?

I am truly fearful for this nation's future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very difficult to say anything based on that article, and I think you may be drawing conclusions too fast. In particular, these quotes jumped out:

Approximately 10 minutes later, that same flight attendant came by with the drinks cart. She leaned over and quietly told my husband there were federal air marshals sitting all around us. She asked him not to tell anyone and explained that she could be in trouble for giving out that information. She then continued serving drinks.
She said that there were people on board higher up than you and me watching the men.

Why were there federal air marshalls sitting 'all around them'? Doesnt this seem a bit odd? Who were the 'higher ups' who happened to be on this plane? It may well be the case that the authorities knew something about these men before they boarded the plane - perhaps they were waiting for them to make a move? But this explanation doesn't make sense, since they didnt make a move so apprehending them upon landing seems out of place. And in any case, why the coverup? Surely the state would love to publicize that it caught '14 potential terrorists', and in any case attempting a coverup when there were such a large number of witnesses seems bizarre. I've no idea what exactly to make of this (Ive never heard of WWS before, is it a credible source?), but there certainly seems to be something going on a bit more involved than 'potential terrorists got on a plane and noone stopped them because they were scared of discrimination laws!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but there certainly seems to be something going on a bit more involved than 'potential terrorists got on a plane and noone stopped them because they were scared of discrimination laws!".

Spearmint: You never fail. You can be counted on to take the same "tolerant" "open-minded" position every time. There's not one post you make where I get the sense that you have any clue about Objectivism.

By the way, Michelle Maliken has been blogging on this incident. It seems that several of the marshals have verified the story. But hey, listen, nothing's going on here out of the usual. And thank goodness for those discrimination laws. Where would we be without them.

Happy flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that no one is interseted in this thread which is fine. But it seems that the 14 Syrians may be legitimate musicians. But that doesn't change the crippling affect that PC anti-discrimination is having on the war against terrorism.

I am curious about something related here. I fly alot and I have to admit I am not comfortable with flying on the same plane as Middle Easterners. If the airlines were free to do so, do you think it would be sensible to have seperate flights for Middle Easterners, at least as a temporary expedient? All the terrorists have been Muslim men b/w the ages of 17-50, or they have been black or hispanic Americans brainwashed by Islam. I'm not comfortable with such measures but if I were an airline head and I had the freedom (which I wouldn't and wont in the forseeable future), I would strongly consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spearmint: You never fail. You can be counted on to take the same "tolerant" "open-minded" position every time. There's not one post you make where I get the sense that you have any clue about Objectivism.

It has nothing to do with being 'tolerant' or 'open-minded', it's to do with the assessment of the evidence available. In this case, I do not find the evidence strong enough to support your thesis, because there are several glaring facts that do not seem to add up. If you think that Objectivism involves ignoring uncomfortable facts in order to render an incident consistent with how you want to assess it, then I would suggest that it is not me who doesnt have "a clue about Objectivism".

I notice that you didn't bother giving any explanation of why there were significant number of air marshalls stationed in the passenger area of the plane (as well as "higher ups" onboard), unless this is a regular occurrence (I do not claim to know a lot about inflight airline security).

edit:

A plausible explanation might be that these men were deemed suspicious before the flight (possibly because of the recent warnings mentioned), so it was decided to station air marshalls on the plane just in case. If this is so, then the accusation that the authorities were scared to take action seems to be unfounded - what else could they do? Ban groups of over 5 asian men from getting on a plane together, regardless of whether there's evidence that they are planning on committing a crime?

As for not taking action during the flight, this seems fairly sensible under the circumstances. Arresting 14 men while a plane is mid-flight would be a VERY major event, which could have serious consequences - not the least would be causing the passengers to panic which could possibly result in a catastrophe. It's a delicate situation - you're 10000 feet in the air, and you have a group of 14 men acting suspiciously. What do you do? Wait till they make their move before you act, or act first and risk panicing the whole plane and possibly arresting innocent men. Making the wrong decision may very well result in the deaths of everyone on the plane, not to mention the terrible, terrible publicity that it could incur. It comes down to a judgement call more than anything else. I wouldn't like to be the one who had to make it. Given that everyone managed to get to the ground safely, I'd be inclined to lean towards the authorities making the correct decision. Maybe their actions potentially endangered the lives of everyone on the plane. Maybe they saved them. I don't know.

This is all speculative of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure that if it were both profitable and legal for private companies to provide seperate planes for white people, one would probably do so. Perhaps water fountains too.

This is the type of left leaning idiotic statement I'd expect from you. The reality is every terrorist we've seen comes from a certain geographical area with a certain ethnic profile and you imply that I am a Jim Crow racist. Your replies are worse than useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has nothing to do with being 'tolerant' or 'open-minded', it's to do with the assessment of the evidence available. In this case, I do not find the evidence strong enough to support your thesis, because there are several glaring facts that do not seem to add up. If you think that Objectivism involves ignoring uncomfortable facts in order to render an incident consistent with how you want to assess it, then I would suggest that it is not me who doesnt have "a clue about Objectivism".

Again, I'm forced to ask what planet are you on? The planet where Muslim fanatics (Middle Eastern men b/w the ages of 17-50) hijack planes and use them as guided missles, where Muslim fanatics (Middle Eastern men b/w the ages of 17-50) sail small watercraft loaded with explosives into a US Destroyer (and incidently where said destroyer was not allowed to fire warning shots due to pressure from the Clinton Admin. not to "offend" anyone), where Muslim fanatics (Middle Eastern men b/w the ages of 17-50) have been caught with plans for a radioactive "dirty bomb" that would leave NY, LA, or Chicago uninhabitable for a couple of centuries, where Muslim fanatics (Middle Eastern men b/w the ages of 17-50) capture US and coalition citizens and saw there heads off, etc, etc.

Can you honestly doubt that terrorists would not be capable of such a stunt as recounted in Ann Jacobsen's article? Can you be so deluded? Its not neccessary for you to answer that. From your posts, I know the answer.

As for you "catastrophe at 10,000 feet" scenerio, all that would have been necessary at that point would have been instructions from flight personell or FAMs for the Syrians to take their seats and go to the restrooms one at a time. However, you can rest assured that the airlines probably can't do that because of the anit-discrimination rules you love so much.

However, as I indicated in a previous post, in a rational world, 14 middle easterners with Syrian passports (the so called 14 asians as you idiotically put it, Middle Easterners are not asian as in oriental, LOL) would never have been allowed to board a single plane. Only in the land of the willfully blind. Incidently, a land that you are quite at home in.

No need to reply Spearmint. You have nothing to say that I'm interested in hearing.

Honestly, when the next plane plummets out of the sky at thirty thousand feet because of Jihadi attack, I hope the tolerationists that made it possible, such as yourself, are on it and not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh look, it appears I was right.

http://www.kfi640.com/ericleonard.html

LOS ANGELES | July 22, 2004 ? Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, 'overreacted' to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.

"The lady was overreacting" said the source. "A flight attendant was told to tell the passenger to calm down; that there were air marshals on the plane."

The middle eastern men were identified by federal agents as a group of touring musicians travelling to a concert date at a casino, said Air Marshals spokesman Dave Adams.

...

The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen's actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves.

Air marshals' only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

"They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings" spokesman Adams confirmed, "to make sure it isn't a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet the real truth lies somewhere in between the two stories.  Afterall one is from a freelance reporter, and the other if from government stories.  These days is it so hard to dig through the bullsh*t. B)

Yeah, I agree; I'm normally fairly sceptical about government sources (and non-government sources too, if we're being honest). I'm inclined to believe this one though because it's fairly consistent with what I assumed had happened from my own reading of the first article. I'm not entirely convinced that they would have bothered arresting these men at the airport based solely on the complaint of a single passenger though, so I would imagine the air marshalls had at least some suspicions. The part about them thinking it was the woman herself who might be a terrorist would be amusing, if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The part about them thinking it was the woman herself who might be a terrorist would be amusing, if true.

Is that really what the article implied? The sentence is kind of imprecise:

"The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves."

Does this mean that the suspected terrorists, by acting strangely in a conspiratorial manner, were trying to create a disturbance like the Jacobsens in order to flush out the air marshalls? Or does it actually mean that the source thought this Jacobsen lady and her husband were terrorists?

I am not surprised by all of this. I think it is quite probable that these Syrians were terrorists, with a simple cover as real musicians on their way to an actual gig. This reminds me of the Thailand soccer team who ended up all being terrorists and conducted a suicide raid on a police station last April.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004May14.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It surprises me that Bush and his minions want to further "protect" us. Bureaucracies are expanded and there are ones newly created. We involve ourselves in two wars as well. The costs to tax payers are then excessive and severe. The socialist Bush lies when he tells of "tax breaks." Perhaps the income of his partners in crime are alleviated, but the innocent remain punished through ever higher tariffs and excise taxes. If the meddling of politicians didn't ban pilots to having a 25 dollar hand gun, we could have saved ourselves and our posterity from further plunder.... To think that a 25 dollar hand gun could have saved trillions of dollars is a delightful yet unfortunate thought. Not only are we plundered but our civil liberties are threatened. Why further trust such scoundrels with your life, liberty and property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am curious about something related here. I fly alot and I have to admit I am not comfortable with flying on the same plane as Middle Easterners. If the airlines were free to do so, do you think it would be sensible to have seperate flights for Middle Easterners, at least as a temporary expedient? All the terrorists have been Muslim men b/w the ages of 17-50, or they have been black or hispanic Americans brainwashed by Islam. I'm not comfortable with such measures but if I were an airline head and I had the freedom (which I wouldn't and wont in the forseeable future), I would strongly consider it." ~ argive99

An airline has every right to target any persons, ethnic, sexuality and religious group and bar them from flying on their airline. Then again they wouldn't be successful businesses now would they? There would be boycotts that taint the airlines image and shareholders who would be displease as the business deprives itself a source of capital from Arab flyers. Then again a closet racist like you does bring a good idea. If Arabs or Arab looking peoples are barred from a certain airline, it would be worthwhile for another airline to bring Arab flyers in and offer them a discount.

Now there are separatists militia movements right here in America. These are formed by white supremacist groups who have large weapons caches and explosives. They have every right to defend themselves but then again such groups popularize violent insurgency, as noted in the Turner Diaries of which inspired Tim McVeigh to blow up that building in Oklahoma City. Not to mention that there are Neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance which the Anti-defamation League states as perpetuating, “Dozens of violent crimes, including murders, bombings and robberies.”

Be afraid of the Arabs but be afraid of whites even more! Arabs constitute less than 1 % of the States while whites continue to be 70 % of this population! For every Arab terrorist there are more red-blooded American terrorists. Be very very afraid my friend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000276.htm

Malikin has been covering this incident. It seems that the Syrians were here illegally. The immigration officials didn't even bother to check their immigration status. The point I was making with this article was that between Anti-Discrimination laws and bureaucratic incompetence, the terrorists will once again cause devastation in America's skies. Whether or not these 14 Syrians conducted a dry run or not, to question whether or not this is possible and is currently being planned as we speek by Jihadis everywhere is, to me, sheer madness. Spearmint's entire reaction to this has me dumbfounded, but then again not really because he/she smells of Libertarian sympathies. Its all over everything he/she writes like the stench of horse shit. The mere fact that you could even take serious the notion that Jacobsen was possibly a terrorist or acting in union with the terrorists shows how disconnected from reality you are. A white, female housewife of Norwegian decent a front for Hamas! LOL! Also, not to be able to detect leftist media opposition to this story because of their multicultual brainwashing also underscores your ignorance. Even if these men were genuine, the media should be erring on the side of vigilence and safety.

And as for Gobstopper's "closet racist" statement. More stupudity as is basically every one of his/her other posts. The people trying to blow up planes and everything else are middle easterners, plain and simple. Therefore, reason dictates that massive scrutiny be directed at them as a group. To not do so is suicide. But it appears that you and Spearmint have a death wish anyway. [Note: Christian terrorists, ala Mcviegh, need to be monitoried as well, as do environmental terrorists. I don't deny that, but that doesn't mean that profiling against middle easterners is unwarrented just because there are crazy white people too. This is a time of war. All screening methods should be deployed.]

But as for this thread, I'm through. Between Spearmint's pacifist, multicultural nonsense and now Gobstopper's stupidity, I could care anymore. The two of you have about as much understanding of Ayn rand's ideas as the average communist.

As I keep saying, happy flying. And a I hope to the non-existent gods that you go down in the next blazing inferno and not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...