Report: Al Qaeda Plans to Bomb London Flights

[cerulean]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107590,00.html
Report: Al Qaeda Plans to Bomb London Flights

Wednesday, January 07, 2004


Police in England and Europe are seeking Al Qaeda (search) terrorists planning to bomb trans-Atlantic jets departing Paris (search) and London (search), security sources said yesterday.

Two Al Qaeda terrorists with American passports and non-Arab physical appearances are believed to be planning assaults on trans-Atlantic flights from London, a U.S. official told The Post.

It's possible that attacks on planes leaving London could be made with shoe bombs, similar to the attack attempted by Richard Reid (search) in December 2001, a British newspaper reported over the weekend.

In France, officials are seeking a man with a bomb whose parts are small enough to get past airport security, ABC News reported. The Afghanistan-trained bomber was booked to fly from Paris to Los Angeles on Christmas Eve, but didn't show at the airport when his Air France flight was canceled, officials said.

Now French authorities are kicking themselves for canceling the flight too soon - and they're afraid that terrorists plan to detonate his bomb on another flight from elsewhere in Europe, the report said.

Five other Air France flights between Paris and the United States were also canceled Christmas Eve.

==============
Not exactly new, and as I suspected, Al Qaeda is trying to use people who do not look Arab and who have non-suspicious passports. As already posted, Al Qaeda is probably also trying to use women.

[L@mplighterM]

It’s just a matter of time before a plane is brought down and I don’t think there’s a damn thing anyone can do about it.

[Kev]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
It’s just a matter of time before a plane is brought down and I don’t think there’s a damn thing anyone can do about it.


I agree exactly, and am wavering on whether these new border checks your country is doing will really help to solve anything OR, will just drive the civil libertarians crazy? :D

[L@mplighterM]

I think that the border checks with fingerprinting are a good idea and have already resulted in stopping unwanted individuals from entering the US. Will it prevent terrorism? Most likely not!

I can certainly visualize the day when tracking chips are implanted in visitors and that's exactly the way it should be.

There's a lot at stake and if another 9/11 takes place (I'm not forgetting the loss of life) it would deliver a devastating blow to the US and world economy. I don’t think you or I can even come close to imagining what takes place behind the scenes in our communities and the mosques that stand there.

If the US or western countries had any sense entry from Islam/Muslims should be forbidden. Of course that won't eliminate the problem of terrorism entirely but it seems like it would reduce it.

All Muslims that engage in hate speech against Jews or their country in the west should be deported without due process. It's not a game that we are engaged in it's survival of our way of life and I'm not entirely certain that we'll win.

[danholo]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I can certainly visualize the day when tracking chips are implanted in visitors and that's exactly the way it should be.


I personally see this as a first step to a less free society. Would you like a chip, of any sort, implanted into yourself? I wouldn't.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by danholo
I personally see this as a first step to a less free society. Would you like a chip, of any sort, implanted into yourself? I wouldn't.

Security sometimes means loss of civil rights and that’s precisely the way it should be IMO. Would I like to have a chip implanted? Big brother is already watching us wherever we go and video surveillance will increase with the passing of time.

I don’t mind having a chip implanted! Why should I?

[Kev]

Well I am wavering on this issue at your borders, and I suppose time will tell whether it really has helped, but if you do believe that an airplane will one day, possibly soon, be hijacked, no matter what you do, then I am not so sure these border checks are really going to amount to anything, other than a huge expense and aggrivation.

That said, Im sure you have proabably heard the rumours, if true, that Al Queda has been finding new converts that dont fit the profile of a muslim terrorist..........people who may freely pass though much easier.
Perhaps some Europeans?

I believe all these checks may not stop anything but just might make those groups a bit smarter about who and how they get into the US.

[jewbyc]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Security sometimes means loss of civil rights and that’s precisely the way it should be IMO. Would I like to have a chip implanted? Big brother is already watching us wherever we go and video surveillance will increase with the passing of time.

I don’t mind having a chip implanted! Why should I?

I think people have forgotten why we were attacked on 9/11 and that was to bring about the end to our way of life. If we start taking away peoples rights then whats the point? The terrorists will have already won :(

[Mediocrates]

This is why purely defensive measures don't really work in the end. Sure we could round up every third person and hunker down. But it won't really matter in end anymore than trying to get rid of drugs or prostitution or street crime.

Zero is not a goal or at least not a practical one. And anyone who believes that zero is the target and we should do everything we can to achieve zero is dreaming. People WILL die and bad things WILL happen. That is a given. The question is, what do we as a society wish to do about it? Do we simply absorb that? One could say that in the 28 months since 9-11, 98,000 people have died on our highways yet no one is clamoring to take away cars and shoot bad drivers.

So what we need to do is set the thermostat. Mark a place where we are willing to go and fight to maintain that level of acceptable terror. It's same in Israel. "Peace" total peace is wish. It will never happen. What will happen is Peace with Periodic Violence. All we are doing is aguing about where to set the thermostat.

So in the US if 1 attack per month or year or whatnot is an acceptable level then we should do whatever it takes to manage that level. If that means only detaining some people then fine. But if it also means we send some guys to Damascus to blow up an apartment bldg and all the 'militants' in it and maybe a bunch of people stupid enough to live with them, then I'm ok with that too. Just dial in the level of terror you're willing to absorb.

[L@mplighterM]

I used to chat with a custom agent somewhere in the EU and it continuously amazed her how innovative people are when it comes to smuggling. One other trick that’s used quite frequently is passport swapping where a relative sends someone their passport and they use it to gain entry into the EU.

Retinal scans and fingerprints are effective in identifying individuals whose data is on file and should be used by all western countries.

A given situation like terrorism can be minimized but never eliminated but governments have an obligation to give it their utmost. Saving human lives takes precedent over any slight violation of civil liberty one might loose.

The measures that were initiated at the beginning of the year wont stop all crimes but if they stop one act of terrorism the implementation will have been worth it. Entering a country isn’t a given right nor should it ever be!

[Mediocrates]

But in the push pull world of politics I am loathe to pay to bail out airlines who use some slogan as an excuse to provide the most horrendous obnoxious service at the highest prices on earth. Waiting 6 hrs on line to make your annual trip to Lisbon or Tel Aviv is one thing. Waiting 6 hrs to make a business flight to West Gopher, Indiana is another.

[Donna]

Originally posted by Kev

That said, Im sure you have proabably heard the rumours, if true, that Al Queda has been finding new converts that dont fit the profile of a muslim terrorist..........people who may freely pass though much easier.
Perhaps some Europeans?

I believe all these checks may not stop anything but just might make those groups a bit smarter about who and how they get into the US.

If they are attempting to use people who don't fit the profile, then all the "random" checks that are being done on people who don't fit the profile of the muslim terrorist (single women with babies, grandparents, etc.) ought to come closer to picking the new mules up.

Especially since it seems that in order to avoid having the racist label slapped on the airlines, they bend over backwards to infrequently, if ever, "randomly" check someone who fits that muslim terrorist profile. Joseph Farah had a little something to say about that in one of his columns.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31194

[Donna]

Efficient defensive measures combined with an efficient and aggressive offense would be ideal. Working smarter all the way across the board.



Originally posted by Mediocrates
This is why purely defensive measures don't really work in the end. Sure we could round up every third person and hunker down. But it won't really matter in end anymore than trying to get rid of drugs or prostitution or street crime.

Zero is not a goal or at least not a practical one. And anyone who believes that zero is the target and we should do everything we can to achieve zero is dreaming. People WILL die and bad things WILL happen. That is a given. The question is, what do we as a society wish to do about it? Do we simply absorb that? One could say that in the 28 months since 9-11, 98,000 people have died on our highways yet no one is clamoring to take away cars and shoot bad drivers.

So what we need to do is set the thermostat. Mark a place where we are willing to go and fight to maintain that level of acceptable terror. It's same in Israel. "Peace" total peace is wish. It will never happen. What will happen is Peace with Periodic Violence. All we are doing is aguing about where to set the thermostat.

So in the US if 1 attack per month or year or whatnot is an acceptable level then we should do whatever it takes to manage that level. If that means only detaining some people then fine. But if it also means we send some guys to Damascus to blow up an apartment bldg and all the 'militants' in it and maybe a bunch of people stupid enough to live with them, then I'm ok with that too. Just dial in the level of terror you're willing to absorb.

[L@mplighterM]

Since 9/11 I’ve read a lot of posts where little old grandmas have been pulled aside for extra screening and a matter of fact that happened to my daughter that was 11 at the time. I think they have a numbering system where every 3rd passenger and then 5th gets pulled aside for extra checking or something like that.

In any event this is all stupid because a terrorist could make their way into an area where there’s a take off or landing path of jets and bring one down with a missile. At takeoff it seems like the jets rise at a 30-degree +/- angle but when they are landing they come in slow and easy gradually loosing altitude for miles. There’s no damn way that the 1,000’s of daily flights can be protected completely.

I’m sure that a database of suspected terrorists exists; they (Interpol, CIA, FBI, Mossad, etc) most likely follow these guys and lift their prints whenever they can and share the recorded findings. If I’m correct should the authorities ignore that information because it might slightly violate someone’s civil rights or use it to their advantage to protect innocent life? I think they should use it!