Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the system works"
PJ O'Donovan
airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the system
works"
ABC News
"..In its Monday statement claiming responsibility for the Northwest
bombing, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula called bombing suspect Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab a "hero" and a "martyr" and lauded him for
beating U.S. intelligence. The two-page written claim included a photo
of Abdulmutallab and boasted of Al Qaeda's success in designing
"advanced explosive packages" that can pass through airport screening
undetected...."
Peter Webb
"PJ O'Donovan" <pjdn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9efac48-7748-40fa...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
A technology which sets fire to terrorists on planes but leaves other
passengers unharmed is potentially quite valuable. Al Qaeda should sell it
to the FAA.
Surfer
<pjdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass through
>airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the system
>works"
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/us/29terror.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=global-home
<Start extract>
.....advanced checkpoint screening devices..... use so-called
millimeter waves to create an image of a passenger's body, so officers
can see under clothing to determine if a weapon or explosive has been
hidden.
<snip>
Amsterdam's airport has 15 of these machines more than just about
any airport in the world, but an official there said Sunday that they
were prohibited from using them on passengers bound for the United
States, for a reason she did not explain.
<End extract>
Svenne
>Amsterdam's airport has 15 of these machines more than just about
>any airport in the world, but an official there said Sunday that they
>were prohibited from using them on passengers bound for the United
>States, for a reason she did not explain.
I think they don't use the machines because they would single out the
terrorists in a very discriminatory way which would violate their
human rights.
Svenne
Petzl
wrote:
Yep definitely against the "law of war"
Petzl
__
As *everyone knows* Islam is of course synonymous with terrorism
*us*
Petzl
>>A technology which sets fire to terrorists on planes but leaves other
>>passengers unharmed is potentially quite valuable. Al Qaeda should sell it
>>to the FAA.
>
> Heh, heh ... :-)
>
> Seriously though ... beware this 'boast' - because it
> serves two purposes :
>
> a) to enhance and extend the panic caused by this
> incident - and therefore the wests self-damage.
>
> b) likely to distract ... keep everybody wasting tons
> of time, money and credibility looking for el-cheapo
> bombs while al-Qaida gets something completely
> different going.
>
> The would-be bomb didn't even HAVE to go off properly in
> order for this to be a completely successful act of
> terrorism. A dozen people sucked-out of the plane would
> have been a bonus, but *fear* was what they were really
> after - and got.
Seems the ragheads running Amsterdam Airport turned off body scan
units 17 days prior, by using Islamic Taqiyya (deception) by saying
the USa does not accept the results (convincing the politicaly correct
Dutch Minster of "Justice"), which is/was true however it is known
that body scanning is far superior to "body pat down"
Combined with Profiling, that is putting Moslem looking "people" in
the right boxes so they can be interrogated effectively (forcebly
stripped down, face slapped as is allowed in "Laws of war")
--
Petzl
What happens with Moslems and Aircraft
Pays to keep Moslems away from Airports
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq_ko5jVMBo&hl=un
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
> Heh, heh ... :-)
>
> Seriously though ... beware this 'boast' - because it
> serves two purposes :
>
> a) to enhance and extend the panic caused by this
> incident - and therefore the wests self-damage.
>
A little panic might get the people who are supposed to layer the
security doing their jobs better.
> b) likely to distract ... keep everybody wasting tons
> of time, money and credibility looking for el-cheapo
> bombs while al-Qaida gets something completely
> different going.
>
> The would-be bomb didn't even HAVE to go off properly in
> order for this to be a completely successful act of
> terrorism. A dozen people sucked-out of the plane would
> have been a bonus, but *fear* was what they were really
> after - and got.
>
But it's hard to get too bent out of shape given that 9/11 is now
an uninteresting afterthought to most folks.
--
Tiger tells eleven mistresses, "I will leave my wife for you."
Donna Evleth
> From: Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:01:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass
> through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the system
> works"
>
> Heh, heh ... :-)
>
> Seriously though ... beware this 'boast' - because it
> serves two purposes :
>
> a) to enhance and extend the panic caused by this
> incident - and therefore the wests self-damage.
>
> b) likely to distract ... keep everybody wasting tons
> of time, money and credibility looking for el-cheapo
> bombs while al-Qaida gets something completely
> different going.
>
> The would-be bomb didn't even HAVE to go off properly in
> order for this to be a completely successful act of
> terrorism. A dozen people sucked-out of the plane would
> have been a bonus, but *fear* was what they were really
> after - and got.
This is exactly why I so detest the panic reaction. When people indicate
they are terrorized by going into the panic mode ("when in panic, when in
doubt, run in circles, scream and shout") the terrorists have won. I don't
want the terrorists to win.
Donna Evleth
>
Arthur Brain
> ban all moslems from flying into or out of the US.
>
> Why should we give up even one freedom for these fuckers ?
Fuckin-eh - exactly - just ban muslims from travelling to civilised
countries = problem solved.
Why do politicians make things seem so complicated sometimes?
John Rennie
Well now 'problem solver' this brown man asks you for a visa,
you ask him if he's a Muslim, he says he isn't - what then?
Perhaps the simple solution would be to ban all brown
men and women from travelling. We might as well include
blacks as well - after all they're used to being treated
badly. Then there's those dreadful Europeans from Bosnia
who are Muslim - simple we ban all Europeans from travelling.
Well there's one problem we are certainly solving - we are
reducing the huge amount of carbon generated by aero engines
because there won't be that many flights after you and I
have sorted out who should be allowed to travel by air.
Mxsmanic
> Americans have very short attention spans ... too much
> of the good life. However al-Qaida IS fixing that. It
> serves their interests if we're in a panic over possible
> terrorism all of the time.
The loss of civil liberties remains long after the incident that was used to
justify them has been forgotten.
Mxsmanic
> This is exactly why I so detest the panic reaction. When people indicate
> they are terrorized by going into the panic mode ("when in panic, when in
> doubt, run in circles, scream and shout") the terrorists have won. I don't
> want the terrorists to win.
You don't have much choice, with terrorists, the government, and the news
media all working towards that goal (albeit for different reasons).
Donna Evleth
> From: Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
> Organization: Just Mxsmanic
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:00:58 +0100
> Subject: Re: Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass
> through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the system
> works"
>
I can still protest that I myself need that choice, and will make it,
whatever. I am not interested in their goal, I am interested in mine, which
is to be left in peace. I'm only one person, but I feel I must speak out.
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: Arthur Brain <arthur.b...@gmail.com>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 05:54:11 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: Ban Muslims from Airports: Problem Solved.
Erm... some Muslims are born in the civilized countries you are talking
about. I think of the bombing in Britain in 2007. I think about the
psychiatrist who killed 13 soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. Banning Muslims
from traveling would have done nothing about them.
Why do you make things so simplistic?
Donna Evleth
Benito 'smacked in the head' Berlusconi
you wanted cheap flights, that's why 9/11 happened....not complicated
at all
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
"Mr.B1ack" wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)"
> You missed what I meant by "self damage" ....
>
> Becoming a security state is SERIOUS self damage ... and
> a pleasure we should not give al-Qaida.
>
But the society must itself be secure. I think the mistake that was
made prior ot 9/11, and I made it too, was to assume that one hit
could be taken before any serious changes were made. What happened
post 9/11 is that more was changed than perhaps would have been
changed to stop 9/11 prior to 9/11.
> The problem is 'moslems'. Ban 'em from the air.
>
> >> b) likely to distract ... keep everybody wasting tons
> >> of time, money and credibility looking for el-cheapo
> >> bombs while al-Qaida gets something completely
> >> different going.
> >>
> >> The would-be bomb didn't even HAVE to go off properly in
> >> order for this to be a completely successful act of
> >> terrorism. A dozen people sucked-out of the plane would
> >> have been a bonus, but *fear* was what they were really
> >> after - and got.
> >>
> >But it's hard to get too bent out of shape given that 9/11 is now
> >an uninteresting afterthought to most folks.
>
> Americans have very short attention spans ... too much
> of the good life. However al-Qaida IS fixing that. It
> serves their interests if we're in a panic over possible
> terrorism all of the time.
>
Do you feel panicked? The fact is that al Qaeda is no direct threat
to most Americans most of the time, probably no direct threat to
most Americans essentially ever. The problem is that each person,
each good person, takes personally any attacks on any other good
people. That makes al Qaeda always an indirect threat to almost all
Americans, in fact it makes al Qaeda and indirect threat against
most of the world.
John Rennie
Mxsmanic
> Hmmm ... you noticed that huh ?
Yes, but I appear to be part of a tiny minority. That's how democracies evolve
and disintegrate.
Mxsmanic
> But the society must itself be secure. I think the mistake that was
> made prior ot 9/11, and I made it too, was to assume that one hit
> could be taken before any serious changes were made. What happened
> post 9/11 is that more was changed than perhaps would have been
> changed to stop 9/11 prior to 9/11.
9/11 did hardly any damage in physical terms. Bad weather takes a much greater
toll on property, and more people die in car accidents and from gunshot wounds
than in 9/11 (even in 9/11 itself, 95% of those involved escaped unharmed).
What 9/11 did was induce panic and hysteria, and give government justification
for curtailing civil liberties. All the damage was psychological, because so
few people could sit back and remain objective. That's the whole essence of
terrorism: to make people afraid until they cannot think and act rationally.
If terrorists had the means to do real physical damage, they'd wage a standard
war with real firepower rather than depend on occasional minor but
high-profile actions to do only psychological damage.
> Do you feel panicked? The fact is that al Qaeda is no direct threat
> to most Americans most of the time, probably no direct threat to
> most Americans essentially ever.
It's really no direct threat to just about anyone. But cooperative news media
and government amplify its importance in mindshare. The media do it to make
money, the government does it to reduce civil liberties and increase its own
power. The best allies of terrorists are news media and government, even
though both claim to be their enemies.
> The problem is that each person,
> each good person, takes personally any attacks on any other good
> people. That makes al Qaeda always an indirect threat to almost all
> Americans, in fact it makes al Qaeda and indirect threat against
> most of the world.
The solution is to stop taking the attacks personally, but that requires a
degree of intelligence and discipline that most people don't have.
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)
> But what is "secure" ???
>
Apparently the US has had no casualties in Iraq since November.
Fighting in the streets, that's not secure.
> >I think the mistake that was
> >made prior ot 9/11, and I made it too, was to assume that one hit
> >could be taken before any serious changes were made. What happened
> >post 9/11 is that more was changed than perhaps would have been
> >changed to stop 9/11 prior to 9/11.
>
> 9-11 would always have happened.
>
> Doesn't matter how severe a security state could
> have been created - the foe actively sought cracks
> in the system ... and in such a busy system can
> ALWAYS find them.
>
So 9/11 Mark 2 will always happen? Had the US actively sought bin
Laden before 9/11, his abilities would have been eroded, his people
would've had something to do. It isn't clear that the size of the
attack would have been the same. What has succeeded since 9/11 in
the US?
> >> The problem is 'moslems'. Ban 'em from the air.
> >>
> >> >> b) likely to distract ... keep everybody wasting tons
> >> >> of time, money and credibility looking for el-cheapo
> >> >> bombs while al-Qaida gets something completely
> >> >> different going.
> >> >>
> >> >> The would-be bomb didn't even HAVE to go off properly in
> >> >> order for this to be a completely successful act of
> >> >> terrorism. A dozen people sucked-out of the plane would
> >> >> have been a bonus, but *fear* was what they were really
> >> >> after - and got.
> >> >>
> >> >But it's hard to get too bent out of shape given that 9/11 is now
> >> >an uninteresting afterthought to most folks.
> >>
> >> Americans have very short attention spans ... too much
> >> of the good life. However al-Qaida IS fixing that. It
> >> serves their interests if we're in a panic over possible
> >> terrorism all of the time.
> >>
> >Do you feel panicked ?
>
> Doesn't matter what *I* feel ... only what the general
> population will fall for.
>
> The enlightened often feel that their insight somehow
> changes the world. It doesn't. The People still act
> like cattle - and will wind up treated as such.
>
I don't think that most Americans are "panicked". But if the bomber
got on the plane without a valid passport, that means that the
system isn't working even at bare minimum. I think that's good
reason to have public pressure.
> >The fact is that al Qaeda is no direct threat
> >to most Americans most of the time, probably no direct threat to
> >most Americans essentially ever.
>
> But that's not what "most Americans" THINK. They're
> just SURE al-Qaida is gonna get them, is hiding under
> THEIR bed.
>
> And will thus surrender all freedoms to prevent being
> attacked.
>
> >The problem is that each person,
> >each good person, takes personally any attacks on any other good
> >people. That makes al Qaeda always an indirect threat to almost all
> >Americans, in fact it makes al Qaeda and indirect threat against
> >most of the world.
>
> The modern 'media' is expert in leading people to believe
> they're somehow closely connected to every nasty thing - be
> it terrrorism or child-snatchers or H1N1 or whatever. The
> media can cherry-pick stories from here and there ... and
> make it SEEM as if it's *everywhere* ... right next door.
>
> People react accordingly.
>
Local news has the If it bleeds, then it leads mentality. This does
raise the general level of apprehension.
cornholio
> > From: Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net>
> > Newsgroups:
> > alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> > c.travel.europe
> > Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:01:38 -0500
> > Subject: Re: Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass
> > through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the system
> > works"
>
>
> >> "PJ O'Donovan" <pjdnvn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Get back to me after the first instance of islamopig terrorism in
AUS.
John Rennie
>
> 'Secure' ... that's a bigger, broader term.
>
>>>> I think the mistake that was
>>>> made prior ot 9/11, and I made it too, was to assume that one hit
>>>> could be taken before any serious changes were made. What happened
>>>> post 9/11 is that more was changed than perhaps would have been
>>>> changed to stop 9/11 prior to 9/11.
>>> 9-11 would always have happened.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter how severe a security state could
>>> have been created - the foe actively sought cracks
>>> in the system ... and in such a busy system can
>>> ALWAYS find them.
>>>
>> So 9/11 Mark 2 will always happen?
>
>
> They'll come from a direction you totally weren't expecting.
>
> The foe aren't idiots ... far from it ......
>
> They'll get us, over and over.
>
> The trick ....... Don't Panic.
>
> But the collective 'we' won't learn.
>
>> Had the US actively sought bin
>> Laden before 9/11, his abilities would have been eroded
>
> of hundreds of 'enemies' ?
>
> Beware the lure of hindsight.
>> his people
>> would've had something to do. It isn't clear that the size of the
>> attack would have been the same. What has succeeded since 9/11 in
>> the US?
>
> the Clinton era and came to fruition early in the Bush-2
> era. Wouldn't have mattered a whit WHO was elected in
> 2000 ... Bin-Laden considers us ALL to be evil infidels.
> 'Liberal', 'conservative', north, south, black, white ...
> whatever.
>>>>> The problem is 'moslems'. Ban 'em from the air.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) likely to distract ... keep everybody wasting tons
>>>>>>> of time, money and credibility looking for el-cheapo
>>>>>>> bombs while al-Qaida gets something completely
>>>>>>> different going.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The would-be bomb didn't even HAVE to go off properly in
>>>>>>> order for this to be a completely successful act of
>>>>>>> terrorism. A dozen people sucked-out of the plane would
>>>>>>> have been a bonus, but *fear* was what they were really
>>>>>>> after - and got.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's hard to get too bent out of shape given that 9/11 is now
>>>>>> an uninteresting afterthought to most folks.
>>>>> Americans have very short attention spans ... too much
>>>>> of the good life. However al-Qaida IS fixing that. It
>>>>> serves their interests if we're in a panic over possible
>>>>> terrorism all of the time.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you feel panicked ?
>>> Doesn't matter what *I* feel ... only what the general
>>> population will fall for.
>>>
>>> The enlightened often feel that their insight somehow
>>> changes the world. It doesn't. The People still act
>>> like cattle - and will wind up treated as such.
>>>
>> I don't think that most Americans are "panicked".
>
>
> Then why do they put up with all this Big Brother crap
> in the name of 'security' ?????
>
> Yep - they're pannicked.
>
> Let the self-destruction proceed ... just as Bin-Laden
> knew it would.
>> But if the bomber
>> got on the plane without a valid passport,
>
>
>> that means that the
>> system isn't working even at bare minimum. I think that's good
>> reason to have public pressure.
>
>
> FAR too many people flying. FAR too many governments
> involved. The 'system' is hyper-complex.
>
> We'll MISS 'em, regularly. No question.
>
> And they KNOW it.
>
> Only need a few percent success rate to achieve
> their goal to 'terrorize'.
>
> Oh, and Big Brothers helpers kinda WANT them to
> succeed .....
>>>> The fact is that al Qaeda is no direct threat
>>>> to most Americans most of the time, probably no direct threat to
>>>> most Americans essentially ever.
>>> But that's not what "most Americans" THINK. They're
>>> just SURE al-Qaida is gonna get them, is hiding under
>>> THEIR bed.
>>>
>>> And will thus surrender all freedoms to prevent being
>>> attacked.
>>>
>>>> The problem is that each person,
>>>> each good person, takes personally any attacks on any other good
>>>> people. That makes al Qaeda always an indirect threat to almost all
>>>> Americans, in fact it makes al Qaeda and indirect threat against
>>>> most of the world.
>>> The modern 'media' is expert in leading people to believe
>>> they're somehow closely connected to every nasty thing - be
>>> it terrrorism or child-snatchers or H1N1 or whatever. The
>>> media can cherry-pick stories from here and there ... and
>>> make it SEEM as if it's *everywhere* ... right next door.
>>>
>>> People react accordingly.
>>>
>> Local news has the If it bleeds, then it leads mentality. This does
>> raise the general level of apprehension.
>
>
> Expect irrationality.
>
> Fanned, exploited, by our own special interests ....
>
Correct responses. However in an earlier post you appeared to be
calling for some sort of profiling. Have you given that up now?
If so well done.
Petzl
<andx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Get back to me after the first instance of islamopig terrorism in
>AUS.
The first Islamic attack in Austrailia in 1915
Mum Dads and children took a Picnic train to the country where Moslems
laid in wait to start killing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Broken_Hill
--
Petzl
Battle Hymn of the Republic
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JCqZ-9-lDEo
http://tinyurl.com/8vqqxd
Planet Visitor II
wrote:
Yet what of those who also wish to be left in peace... but instead are
left in pieces on a soccer field in Pakistan? Who speaks for them??
Planet Visitor II
http://alt-activism-death-penalty.info/dictionary.html
>Donna Evleth
John Rennie
> John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Correct responses. However in an earlier post you appeared to be
>> calling for some sort of profiling. Have you given that up now?
>> If so well done.
>
> you know where most of your problems are gonna come
> from, cover it.
>
> Of course you'll miss some who don't fit the profile,
> but if you DON'T profile you'll miss even more.
>
> I think this is one of those situations where practical
> concerns and common sense have to at least partially
> override the finer, oft stupider, points of 'liberal'
> political ideology. Slightly inconveniencing young
> 'arab-looking' males is not a gross breech of civil
> liberties. Banning them from flying, hell, banning
> all MOSLEMS from flying, WOULD be ... though it
> would cut airline terrorism down to about zero.
I've already pointed out that you can't ban the believers
of a particular religion from flying. Have you had much contact
with Hindus - do you know how very similar they are to Arabs?
Are you aware that Arabs are a minority re the Muslim faith?
Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Turkey, Iran and other Asian countries
including Chinese Muslims outnumber them by hundreds of millions.
>
> Of course, statistically, it's ALREADY "about zero".
> Given the sheer number of flights and passengers and
> miles traveled versus the handful of times there's
> been any terrorism, well, you could just ignore the
> terrorism entirely. Alas, the powers that be and
> their friends seeking 'security'-related govt
> contracts don't want you to THINK about that .... :-)
My solution is a personal one. Stay at home.
Petzl
>Like hell you can't ...
>
> But the legalities and politics would be
> a real bitch.
Just political correctness stopping it being done now!
Just put in the "box" and list Islam as a terrorist organisation
outlawing it. Instead of just parts of Islam as is now being done
Petzl
__
As *everyone knows* Islam is of course synonymous with terrorism
Donna Evleth
> From: Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:06:27 -0500
> Subject: Re: Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass
> through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the
> system works"
>
> John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>> Mr.B1ack wrote:
>>> John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Correct responses. However in an earlier post you appeared to be
>>>> calling for some sort of profiling. Have you given that up now?
>>>> If so well done.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking, 'profiling' is a good idea. If
>>> you know where most of your problems are gonna come
>>> from, cover it.
>>>
>>> Of course you'll miss some who don't fit the profile,
>>> but if you DON'T profile you'll miss even more.
>>>
>>> I think this is one of those situations where practical
>>> concerns and common sense have to at least partially
>>> override the finer, oft stupider, points of 'liberal'
>>> political ideology. Slightly inconveniencing young
>>> 'arab-looking' males is not a gross breech of civil
>>> liberties. Banning them from flying, hell, banning
>>> all MOSLEMS from flying, WOULD be ... though it
>>> would cut airline terrorism down to about zero.
>>
>> I've already pointed out that you can't ban the believers
>> of a particular religion from flying.
>
> Like hell you can't ...
>
> But the legalities and politics would be
> a real bitch.
>
>> Have you had much contact
>> with Hindus - do you know how very similar they are to Arabs ?
>
> Not that I've noticed. The ones from northwestern India
> look like Pakistanis - mostly because they're derived
> from the same population stock - but they don't ACT
> quite the same.
>
> Unfortunately, at a quick glance, many hispanics
> 'look arab' - making it easier for infiltrators to
> come up from the south and kinda blend in.
>
>> Are you aware that Arabs are a minority re the Muslim faith?
>> Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Turkey, Iran and other Asian countries
>> including Chinese Muslims outnumber them by hundreds of millions.
>
> Guess we'd have to ban 'brownish people' then ...
> problem solved :-)
>
>>> Of course, statistically, it's ALREADY "about zero".
>>> Given the sheer number of flights and passengers and
>>> miles traveled versus the handful of times there's
>>> been any terrorism, well, you could just ignore the
>>> terrorism entirely. Alas, the powers that be and
>>> their friends seeking 'security'-related govt
>>> contracts don't want you to THINK about that .... :-)
>>
>> My solution is a personal one. Stay at home.
>
> There are always trains, automobiles, motorcycles,
> bicycles, boats, horses and, of course, walking.
> But if you feel better inside your darkened
> apartment with five locks on the doors ... to
> each their own.
>
> Now I haven't been on a commercial plane since
> about 1980 ... but it's mostly a matter of concern
> about maintenence issues and aging fleets. Been
> on a few small planes since then ... which is OK
> so long as I'm in the co-pilots seat with the
> controls right in front of me. Something about
> the "control of your own destiny" aspect.
I am glad that you have the skill and experience to have that kind of
control of your travel destiny. Most of us don't. And John Rennie's
solution of "just stay home" doesn't work for me either. We have friends
and relatives in the US who cannot, for an assortment of reasons, come here.
So we must go there. We cannot do that by bicycle, horse, or foot (though
we are considering looking into boats, we can remember the era when lots of
steamships crossed the Atlantic, we took our favorite, the France, 15 times)
So consider yourself lucky. A lot of us are trapped.
Donna Evleth
>
Mxsmanic
> Just political correctness stopping it being done now!
> Just put in the "box" and list Islam as a terrorist organisation
> outlawing it.
I think that has already been tried with other religions, most recently and
notably Judaism, a few decades ago. After a given generation witnesses what
this leads to, the following generation condemns and outlaws it, but then, two
generations later, people decide it's okay again, often in response to
non-existent "threats" to "safety."
Petzl
wrote:
Did it work with them
Some would say they behave themselves now and are good friends
Islam is a threat now and not even legal
Donna Evleth
> From: Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:36:54 +1100
> Subject: Re: Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass
> through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the
> system works"
>
Where is Islam not legal? In what country?
Donna Evleth
Petzl
wrote:
>>
>> Did it work with them
>> Some would say they behave themselves now and are good friends
>> Islam is a threat now and not even legal
>
>Where is Islam not legal? In what country?
>
>Donna Evleth
>
Every country that Moslems have fled too that owe their legacy to Our
Lord Jesus Christ- This has effectively saved them in this life only,
not the next
Our you think that any cult that is a front for Slavery, Paedophilia
(Thighing), incest (inbreeding),polygamy/polygyny, Lying (taqiyya) and
so on is lawful? Allowing Islam and Sharia condones this evil cult.
Petzl
--
If it's in the Koran, it's Allah's word
Slavery-Paedophillia (Thighing)-incest (inbreeding)-polygamy/polygyny-Lying (taqiyya)
John Rennie
THIGHING!! Is that wrong? Oh dear.
Mxsmanic
> Did it work with them
It didn't change anything.
Donna Evleth
> From: Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:24:06 +1100
> Subject: Re: Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass
> through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the
> system works"
>
PLONK!
Donna Evleth
John Rennie
Before I delete him I want to find out what the hell
'thighing' is.
Arthur Brain
> Arthur Brain wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 7:06 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> >> Petzl <pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:01:38 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> >>>>> A technology which sets fire to terrorists on planes but leaves other
> >>>>> passengers unharmed is potentially quite valuable. Al Qaeda should sell it
> >>>>> to the FAA.
> >>>> Heh, heh ... :-)
> >>>> Seriously though ... beware this 'boast' - because it
> >>>> serves two purposes :
> >>>> a) to enhance and extend the panic caused by this
> >>>> incident - and therefore the wests self-damage.
> >>>> of time, money and credibility looking for el-cheapo
> >>>> bombs while al-Qaida gets something completely
> >>>> different going.
> >>>> The would-be bomb didn't even HAVE to go off properly in
> >>>> order for this to be a completely successful act of
> >>>> terrorism. A dozen people sucked-out of the plane would
> >>>> have been a bonus, but *fear* was what they were really
> >>>> after - and got.
> >>> units 17 days prior, by using Islamic Taqiyya (deception) by saying
> >>> the USa does not accept the results (convincing the politicaly correct
> >>> Dutch Minster of "Justice"), which is/was true however it is known
> >>> that body scanning is far superior to "body pat down"
> >>> Combined with Profiling, that is putting Moslem looking "people" in
> >>> the right boxes so they can be interrogated effectively (forcebly
> >>> stripped down, face slapped as is allowed in "Laws of war")
> >> Fuck the Big-Brotherish scans ... have some balls and just
> >> ban all moslems from flying into or out of the US.
>
> >> Why should we give up even one freedom for these fuckers ?
>
> > Fuckin-eh - exactly - just ban muslims from travelling to civilised
> > countries = problem solved.
>
> > Why do politicians make things seem so complicated sometimes?
>
> Well now 'problem solver' this brown man asks you for a visa,
> you ask him if he's a Muslim, he says he isn't - what then?
If in doubt, ban him from entering the country.
As a citizen of my country, *my* right to peace and security trumps
any foreigner's desire to visit my country.
Make all visitors to Australia obtain a security clearance before they
get a visa.
Needless to say, anybody who has ever been anywhere near a mosque is
ineligible for a security clearance.
> Perhaps the simple solution would be to ban all brown
> men and women from travelling.
If they have a current security clearance, they are fine.
> We might as well include
> blacks as well - after all they're used to being treated
> badly.
Are they? They treat each other worse than anybody has ever treated
them. I don 't see what use they are to us, anyway, so who cares if
they have trouble getting into our country?
> Then there's those dreadful Europeans from Bosnia
> who are Muslim - simple we ban all Europeans from travelling.
> Well there's one problem we are certainly solving - we are
> reducing the huge amount of carbon generated by aero engines
> because there won't be that many flights after you and I
> have sorted out who should be allowed to travel by air.
No, we're sorting out who should travel to *our* country. They can fly
round to theuir hearts' content so long as trhey stay the fuck away
from us.
If they are honest and upstanding enough to get a security clearance,
then we let them travel here.
Oh, and anybody trying to enter Australia illegally by boat should
treated as an invasion force and blown out of the water.
Arthur Brain
> > From: Arthur Brain <arthur.brain.h...@gmail.com>
> > Organization:http://groups.google.com
> > Newsgroups:
> > alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> > c.travel.europe
> > Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 05:54:11 -0800 (PST)
> > Subject: Re: Ban Muslims from Airports: Problem Solved.
> about.
Exactly - we made a massive mistake letting these savages into our
civilised country.
> I think of the bombing in Britain in 2007. I think about the
> psychiatrist who killed 13 soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. Banning Muslims
> from traveling would have done nothing about them.
Duh! They should have been banned from coming here in the first
place.
It's not too late! We can still round them all up and deport them!
> Why do you make things so simplistic?
Because it really is fucking simple: islam is not compatible with our
civilisation and we shouldn't allow it.
The Koran advocates bigotry and violence and there's no way in this
world we should be forced to tolerate the intolerable.
Arthur Brain
> > psychiatrist who killed 13 soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. Banning Muslims
> > from traveling would have done nothing about them.
>
> Arthur hasn't got a brain.
Fuckwits who support the continued infiltration of our country by
muslims haven't got a brain.
Arthur Brain
> Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> >> From: Petzl <pet...@gmail.com>
> >> Newsgroups:
> >> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> >> c.travel.europe
> >> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:24:06 +1100
> >> Subject: Re: Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass
> >> through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the
> >> system works"
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>> Did it work with them
> >>>> Some would say they behave themselves now and are good friends
> >>>> Islam is a threat now and not even legal
> >>> Where is Islam not legal? In what country?
>
> >>> Donna Evleth
>
> >> Every country that Moslems have fled too that owe their legacy to Our
> >> Lord Jesus Christ- This has effectively saved them in this life only,
> >> not the next
> >> Our you think that any cult that is a front for Slavery, Paedophilia
> >> (Thighing), incest (inbreeding),polygamy/polygyny, Lying (taqiyya) and
> >> so on is lawful? Allowing Islam and Sharia condones this evil cult.
> >> Petzl
> >> --
> >> If it's in the Koran, it's Allah's word
> >> Slavery-Paedophillia (Thighing)-incest (inbreeding)-polygamy/polygyny-Lying
> >> (taqiyya)
> Before I delete him I want to find out what the hell
> 'thighing' is.
I see - you're on here as an apologist for Islam and you don't even
know the most basic facts about paedophilia as advocated in the Koran,
as practised by Mohammed?
Typical know-nothing WWWanker.
Mitchell Holman
news:6a155732-f217-45d7...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com:
What is your prescription for Australians who
convert to Islam?
Donna Evleth
> From: John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net>
> Reply-To: john-...@talktalk.net
> Newsgroups:
> alt.activism.death-penalty,talk.politics.misc,uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,re
> c.travel.europe
> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:24:16 +0000
> Subject: Re: Al Qaeda boast: "advanced explosive packages" that can pass
> through airport screening undetected". Not to worry though because "the
> system works"
>
Could it be a sigh sighed by someone with a lisp? :-)
Donna Evleth
Petzl
<john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>Before I delete him I want to find out what the hell
>'thighing' is.
Moslems also know it as "Mufa'khathat" google either or both
http://tinyurl.com/Islamic-Pedophilia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENWaWcRvGtM
Petzl
--
Moslem Fraud and Polygamy "Australians are fools"
http://tinyurl.com/Fraud-Polygamy
Petzl
wrote:
>>>> Our you think that any cult that is a front for Slavery, Paedophilia
>>>> (Thighing), incest (inbreeding),polygamy/polygyny, Lying (taqiyya) and
>>>> so on is lawful? Allowing Islam and Sharia condones this evil cult.
>>>> Petzl
>>>> --
>>>> If it's in the Koran, it's Allah's word
>>>> Slavery-Paedophillia (Thighing)-incest (inbreeding)-polygamy/polygyny-Lying
>>>> (taqiyya)
>>>
>>> PLONK!
>>>
>>> Donna Evleth
>>>
>>
>>
>> Before I delete him I want to find out what the hell
>> 'thighing' is.
>
>Could it be a sigh sighed by someone with a lisp? :-)
>
>Donna Evleth
Hmm I see you've signed the Organ Donor yes box :->
Petzl
--
Our parliaments need to obey our Constitutions,
the judiciary must apply the law