About Aviation Security Paranoia

[Zinger]

I think this is a good exemple how paraniod people can come in relation to suspected terrorism.
We see it everywhere.  Strictly forbidden access to the cockpit, airport security over reacting...,  around airport perimeter roads regarding spotters etc etc.

Here the terrorists certainly has won.

B. Rgds
Michel

Following 9/11/2001, FAA requires steel cockpit doors on commercial flights. Since 1968, an airline aware of such security threat does the same, places onboard armed security watching the whole cabin and cockpit entrance, and establishes passenger screening and other measures. If you count attacked aircraft (e.g. Pan Am, TWA, United, American, Swissair, Air India, Philippine, Sabena, El Al, Ethiopian, Air France, Malev, MEA, many others), you'd be surprised of the frightening number, and doubt paranoia as a  valid argument. Where the terrorists win is the ease at which their expanding activity continues to take place unhindered. At the same time, civil society is spending hundreds of Billions and pays with lives of thousands military and civilian personnel, chasing the threat where the street light is while avoiding the driving force behind the attacks. Last, while Obama calls the shots, this will not change, as his personal history renders him incapable of seeing things for what they really are.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I'm curious about that street light suggestion. What would you suggest to do instead, i.e., what do you propose to do against the driving forces behind the attacks?

Jeroen

[Zinger]

Briefly:
a. Identify the driving force behind terror attacks and its motives. In other words, who and why is preparing, funding and supporting suicide bombers and the like.
b. Make strategic plan and implement it based on a.

The street light approach seemingly leads one nowhere. It took Iraq into prolonged instability, Afghanistan into near deadlock following 9 years of expensive war in terms of resources and lives, and turned Pakistan into a nuclear state controlled by terrorist-infested military, into which currently $B7 are being pumped by US.
It also stabilized Ben Laden and his gang in safe hideaway from which they expanded Al Qaeda into Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, the Maghreb, to mention a select few, as well as instigate attacks against western world events and locations, such as the recent football world cup.

As to the motivation of the above, you are invited to read the following 2004 speech by Prof. Harari uploaded here:
https://www.dropbox.com/home#/Docs:::
HTH

[OKD]

Hi Zinger

Below were written a few days back by me under your topic "Hobby, Worms, and Hypocricy", which also I feel that what I've written probably is the answer to your point "A & B".


MY QUOTE - IDENTIFY THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THESE SO CALLED "TERRORISTS" AIMS...
 
Unfortunately, the UN and the US or their "peer support" are living in denial...

The whole point or may I ask (the CIAs / MI 5,6,7 etc.../Israel's agency - forgotten your agency's name) IF they are reading this...WHAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THESE SO CALLED TERRORISTS FIGHTING FOR...?

So far, so many US Presidents / World Leaders / UN Sec Gen had come and gone...none of them actually had the balls to stand up on stage and answered THE question. From the era of the mid 60s; till the acts in Munich Olympic; hijackings in the 70s; Kuwait invaded by Iraq; 911; the UN "never approved" invasion of Iraq & Afghan.....

Looks like nobody will ever answer THE question till THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT...!

END


Furthermore, we all know UNOFFICIALLY who are the driving force behind all these attacks, and you correctly said so that the driving force (world police) are spending billion of dollars in rooting out these "terrorists".

I just wonder instead of spending so much in arms and all these offensive equipments / military personnels, why don't they just spend HALF the amount in the PR machine in addressing THE ROOT CAUSE (what provoked the "terrorists") of all these attacks.  Surely will be more effective.

[Zinger]

Hello OKD,
the article I quoted in my message above yours, composed and presented by Prof. Harari, a respectable figure in the world of physics and the whole scientific community, who has no relation to politics whatsover, addressed your question and I believe gave a clear answer.

Here is a less politically correct (a term ridiculing our societies) view, shared by quite a few:
Islam divides the world into two zones:
a. Dar el Islam, Home of Islam, describes areas under the rule of Islamic law, known as Sharia
b. Dar el Harb, Home of War, describes the rest of the world.

Quran, the holy Islam Bible, and the way of the prophet Muhammad which sets rules for Muslims, mandate conquest of area b and eradication of non-believers.
Among the various factions and schools of thought, there is little if any dispute regarding the above. Disputes exist about the means the subject holy war must use.

USA used a unique way following the Peal Harbor attack to neutralize a potential threat of residents and citizens of Japanese origin: all of them including colonels with secret clearance were relocated to camps where they were isolated from other communities for the duration of that war.
Why refer to this example? because the threat is by Islam to the free world, no other. Neutralize that population from potentially threatening the rest of the population, and you have basically eliminated that threat in that area. Politically correct? certainly not, I even doubt that it would become one following mass murder by dirty bomb of peaceful people. The liberal democratic world cannot accept such solution, to the point where it can barely make an objective analysis shown here. Effective? most likely. Are there peaceful Muslims? many, but when pressure is brought to bear by their peers due to their poor support of the cause, they will coopereate or be put with other non-believers, to rest in peace.
No special service can do anything effective until state leaders realized what was brought unto their countries and societies.

[Michel Vandaele]

When reading all the reactions, it is very clear to me, the opinion regarding this subject depends a lot where you are living on earth and what is your origine.
Countries which are trying to dominate the world will always be potential targets.
For me one thing is very sure,  ban all religions and our world will be a much saver place.
BRgds
Michel

[OKD]

Good point Michel. However, might as well follow your good advice in telling those countries NOT TO try to dominate the world, then they won't be the target, our world will DEFINITELY be the safest place.  Hence banning religion is out  of the question.

[Zinger]

Bonsoir Michel,
I beg to differ on most of your points. My opinion is independent of where I live or my origin (half Ukranian half Romanian), but is largely based on personal experience and open mind. It doesn't take long to determine who is systematically lying and who you trust. People who employed for decades certain workers, hosted them in their homes and in some cases treated them as extended family, were stabbed to death one day because of a sermon they had attended.

The Islamic wave is not in its foundation religious. It is a cultural wave fueled by religious motives. Generally, problems between peoples aren't religious. They stem from the bad in human character.

Read the article I linked. Terror has nothing to do with conquest, social injustice, domination and the like. It has much to do with frustration of own performance. All  Arab states put together, with such huge fortune under their feet, have combined GDP lower than the Netherlands. Those gulf states which managed to build worthwhile economies are remote from any conflict, but worried of the neighbor on their east. Except Qatar which already succumbed to become Iran's satellite. They should know better and worry though,  since deep in Iranian culture, Arabs are subhuman, and compared to certain animals.

When reading all the reactions, it is very clear to me, the opinion regarding this subject depends a lot where you are living on earth and what is your origine.
Countries which are trying to dominate the world will always be potential targets.
For me one thing is very sure,  ban all religions and our world will be a much saver place.
BRgds
Michel

[Shiv Mathur]

As to the motivation of the above, you are invited to read the following 2004 speech by Prof. Harari uploaded here:
https://www.dropbox.com/home#/Docs:::
HTH

It asks for email and password.  Am I missing something?

[Zinger]

Sorry Shiv,
 hadn't realized that, drop me a message with your email and I'll set permission.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Check on the viability of this discussion: passed. Go on.

[OKD]

Zinger....

IF & WHEN someone in a high political / diplomatic posiition can or have the honour to answer THE QUESTION, "The Root Cause of all these problems", then I trust that it has nothing to do with riligion, but the greed of human kind / nature who craze for power individually and for their little "secret group".

Furthermore, I remember that I read an article regarding the former PM of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew, who said and I quote, "My neighbour is a Muslim family and we have had fantastic relationships, but yet I still do not undertand fully about Islam.  So I don't know how President XXX could claim that he understands Islam totally". UNQUOTE.

Furthermore, for example, Tariq Aziz, the former deputy minister under Saddam Hussain IS not a Muslim, but yet how many people of daily newspaper readers know about this, except linking him naturally with Islam just because of his Arab name.

If you talk about FREE WORLD, free world DOWS NOT MEAN  FAIR WORLD.  Just as though FREE TRADE, DOES NOT mean FAIR TRADE.  These politicians drummed up the world "free" to cover up their real intention.

Free Trade means "free for all", so if you are weak, you'll loose out as oppose to if you are the strongest, you'll dictate but there's not gurantee that it can be FAIR for all.

FAIR TRADE mean FAIR for all regardless if you belong to the group of G8 or impoverish country.

In the end, both issues "terrorists act" and "Commercial Terrorists" definitely have one thing in common.  HUMAN CRAZE FOR POWER, and not a religious issue.

I rest my case here and shall not further comment under this topic.  It is also out of respect to my fellow forum members and its host.

My aplogies to all and the forum host if I have offended you.

NOw time to hassle Hardy for some screen shots....!!

G'day to all...

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

I largely if not totally agree with OKD. I've been trying for a number of years to make up my mind on what is happening, not just in terms of what I read in the news (which is distorted both ways) but also in terms of why it happens. And religion alone cannot explain it for me.

About 1800 years ago another religion has massacred shameful amounts of people during jihad-like large campaigns under the cover of religion, but I doubt these men went East because they believed they had to to it because it was written in a book they usually could not even read.

Free is a concept that comes with courage, calculated risk taking. It is part of the concept that you know that it is dangerous to allow others to be free, to not control them even if you could. The assumption is that if you leave them mostly free, and only agree that they hand in some freedom in exchange for clear benefits that are mutual, the result is a stable situation which is better for generally everyone. Not always everyone, sadly, just as democracy isn't the perfect solution due to the inherent need for compromises.

My fear is that what is happening is that a certain part of the planet, which is not at all free in any sense and is ruled with iron hands and minds by powerful, rich people who see no benefit in letting anybody free, intentionally and scrupulously abuses the freedom in another part of the planet to expand their own. They simply don't need freedom as a tool to get richer, as they are in the comfortable position to just tell people to go out, get a bit of planet, and get killed in the process for convenience and one less mouth to feed. They carefully abused an old book to brainwash desperate, poor people with no future (no work, no food, no wife) into believing that killing themselves and making many victims will assure them a life in heaven.

Now, if I'm right, this does not make the threat of being blown up in front of a shop any less. But it does change the approach to a better world a bit. Yes, we do need to do something about immediate threats to be blown up, sure. But anything we do erodes our own freedom, so we much carefully balance the threat with the loss of freedom to ourselves. This is not one global decision, this must be made depending on the threat level which differs per place, as some people know all too well. I do not want to give up essential rights, such as the right for privacy, because somebody in the government sells the fight against crime and terrorism as a good reason to tap my phone, my internet connection, the position of my car, my public transport routes, my bank transfers, and so on. I do accept a security check at an airport.

Zinger made a point that was new to me in this context, the isolation of a single group of people after Pearl Harbor. Against all ideas of freedom, yet likely effective, not completely off the scale (most people returned), and due to the formal war situation acceptable to a free society.

I don't claim it can be done, but suppose the "free world" would indeed manage to get itself into a formal state of war, would it be possible to do the same in some way? To extract all people from society that belong to a classification which brands them as a risk, independent of what happens in their brains, and isolate them until the threat is neutralised? How do you neutralise a threat by iron men far away that could not care less about their people? It took pretty drastic measures 65 years ago with a lot of collateral damage. That target group of iron men was visible and localised, and could be influenced indirectly (the bombs did not hit them). I fear this would not work with the current iron men.

I fear Zinger's statement about peer pressure is largely correct. You will need a tremendous amount of pressure to convince some Muslim people I know to start killing, but when they have to choose between their family or their neighbours, it may happen. We've seen this in many places in the all to recent past. People are social animals and this comes with manipulation opportunities.

But what can you do about it, realistically? You cannot temporarily remove all Muslims from society just in case, as you have no means of toppling the iron men (we've proven that pretty convincingly by now). In the very end, probably the Muslims themselves must topple these iron men. Would there be any chance at all of this ever happening? And if so, do we just need to wait 1300 years?


Jeroen

[Zinger]

Jeroen made interesting observations. I know this is primarily a flight simulation forum, so if this thread is of no interest to you, please ignore it and sorry to bother you. On the other hand, my belief is that people of the level found here would generally be interested in whatever is about to happen to their lives and the future of their offsings, and would therefore spend a minute now and then thinking about some ugly but necessary aspects of their lives and responsibilites.
There is a good Hollywood movie with Gary Cooper about a rural quaker family facing the start of the American civil war. In the end, family members realize the new reality and function like any other human to protect their lives.

The threat I mentioned as mainstream is greater than just terror and forceful conquest. In Europe reality is changing such that soon majority makers in parliaments will put sharia into state law. In Belgium, there is a split society along ethnic lines, and with the presence of a large Muslim minority, the latter can by simple vote decide who would run the country, would it split along ethnic lines and when will sharia become effective. Don't get distracted by the new Burqa law.

Returning to terror, let us take the example of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is not for us to eduacte and train the people of those countries, unless they ask us to. As long as they do not pose a threat to us and do not abuse their people. It's up to them to choose their clothes, and educate whoever they want in their madrasaas. It is our business to prevent threats from those territories from being planned and executed against our societies. That also includes the production and export of illegal drugs which threaten our societies.

A blocade of all movement of people and goods in and out, would, although not completely, by and large put those territories out of threat context. All modern services such as satellite phones would cease, and all military equipment sold under Gov't to Gov't LOA would be returned as signed originally. Any country not fully cooperating in this could be boycotted. We have the means utilizing technology, space and atmosphere to ensure no new threats are quietly emerging there, e.g. Somalia, Yemen, etc... much more effective than 1,000,000 people just for intelligence in the US against a few hundred terrorists who smartly use freedom to get to us.
It is interesting to note, that Iran is now allowing its greatest enemies, the Sunnis (Al Qaeda), to safely harbor under their imperial wings.

Imagine South Korea and Japan blocading North Korea, China not cooperating, and as a result, the US and EU imposing 10,000% customs charges on Chinese products. It would slow western growth for a while but then return China to its old and proper proportions.

[Shiv Mathur]

Sorry Shiv,
 hadn't realized that, drop me a message with your email and I'll set permission.

Your email is set to 'hidden'.  (You can, however, send me a message -- my
 address is not hidden).

In any case, since you posted this in a forum, can you not make it
accessible to everyone, without special permissions ?

Regards,
Shiv

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Hm, not sure.

First, the current movement in both Belgium and the Netherlands is that the largest parties are the ones that want to implement the sort of blockade you propose. The other parties are not exactly either majority makers or controlled by Muslims. I don't think that even an orchestrated Muslim movement would be able to implement the required fundamental (constitutional) changes to roll out Sharia any time soon. Belgium would rather split according to language lines, and not all Muslims speak French.

What could be a threat is that some parties may (may!) elect to allow sharia in back rooms to gain voters. This is a dark scenario which, indeed, is dangerous. I admit that this is not totally impossible given the party politics of certain parties in Belgium, who seem to like keeping the poor poor to remain in power. But this I all have from second hand info, I don't live in the French speaking part of Belgium and the Dutch speaking part is quite the opposite. Please help me out if I see it wrongly.

A global blockade of goods and, more importantly, people isn't exactly a nice measure, but I would accept it if I would be convinced that it would work. I think the sacrifice in terms of economy would be too great for the Western powers to consider it, especially the China option which isn't completely unrealistic. The moral sacrifice may be easier to overcome, though the very idea of isolating a large group of essentially innocent people back to the Middle Ages or beyond isn't attractive.

On the other hand, it may be a correct response if the other side can only think in "with us, or against us." A blockade makes this explicit from both sides.
Either you practice "our" customs, or you disappear from view. But it's the millions of people caught in between that worry me. Do you necessarily need to fight uncivilised leaders by denying their innocent people civilisation?


Jeroen

[Zinger]

Your email is set to 'hidden'.  (You can, however, send me a message -- my
 address is not hidden).
I see the exact opposite.

In any case, since you posted this in a forum, can you not make it
accessible to everyone, without special permissions ?
Sure!

Regards,
Shiv

[Shiv Mathur]

Ah ... it seems there is a setting in 'Edit Options' in which one can
select 'public email'.  
I've ticked that now !

[Zinger]

I don't think that even an orchestrated Muslim movement would be able to implement the required fundamental (constitutional) changes to roll out Sharia any time soon.
What could be a threat is that some parties may (may!) elect to allow sharia in back rooms to gain voters. This is a dark scenario which, indeed, is dangerous. I admit that this is not totally impossible given the party politics of certain parties in Belgium, who seem to like keeping the poor poor to remain in power. But this I all have from second hand info, I don't live in the French speaking part of Belgium and the Dutch speaking part is quite the opposite. Please help me out if I see it wrongly.
Maybe. In the UK,where Muslim presence is similar to Belgium and Netherlands, sharia is alive and kicking. Quite a few licensed banks observe it, and as example do not use interest in their business. Sharia courts are empowered by law, and a Muslim can divorce his wife just by telling her so. The House of Lords includes Muslim members. Muslims will vote when called to, as the sermon dictates, or else face dire consequence.

A global blockade of goods and, more importantly, people isn't exactly a nice measure, but I would accept it if I would be convinced that it would work. I think the sacrifice in terms of economy would be too great for the Western powers to consider it, especially the China option which isn't completely unrealistic. The moral sacrifice may be easier to overcome, though the very idea of isolating a large group of essentially innocent people back to the Middle Ages or beyond isn't attractive.
Innocent?
Keeping the PRC Yuan out of free trade and undervalued to increase export.
Voting against effective Iran sanctions, thereby enabling it to escape international nuclear control and complete deployment of nuclear weapons. All gulf states are shivering of fear and hoping someone would come to their help.
International trade?
What would the Iran situation do to world oil markets?
When Putin shut gas supply to Europe last winter, a large proportion of production and services were closed for weeks to conserve reserves for emergencies.

On the other hand, it may be a correct response if the other side can only think in "with us, or against us." A blockade makes this explicit from both sides.
Either you practice "our" customs, or you disappear from view. But it's the millions of people caught in between that worry me. Do you necessarily need to fight uncivilised leaders by denying their innocent people civilisation?

Along this line, EU should accept Turkey as a member, and greatly accelerate the Islamization of Europe. Recommended reading- Eurabia by Bath Yeor.
In my opinion, the natural home of certain people is their place of origin. Should they want to migrate, they should be willing to accept local laws and customs.
Australia which paid a dear price to learn the lesson, is now struggling with the consequence. Europe is not there yet.

[Shiv Mathur]

As to the motivation of the above, you are invited to read the following 2004 speech by Prof. Harari uploaded here:
https://www.dropbox.com/home#/Docs:::
HTH

Hi Zinger,
I'd still be interested to read this speech.  But the password problem is still there.
Could you please make it accessible to us?

Shiv