Monarch Airlines Flight ZB613

Carrera said:

Passengers on board Monarch Airlines Flight ZB613 took matters into their own hands and abandoned their flight from Manchester to Spain. The incident was fueled by suspicions over 2 Middle Eastern men who were also on board the plane. Several of the passengers informed the crew they feared for their safety and would not go ahead with the flight.
The two Middle Eastern men were then interviewed by flight security, their passports were examined and they were not allowed to board. They were re-directed onto another flight. It later turned out they were not associated with terrorism.
However, the authorities fear more incidents like this could become more commonplace.
Comments:

scaremongering.

limerickman said:

scaremongering.

Agreed Lim. It seems that the rats are now in charge of the cheesecage. Now what's the word? Ah yes. Public anarchy.

Crappy, I would normally respond in kind to this topic, but lately you have become so ridiculous and unreliable that I can't.

😕

Carrera said:

Passengers on board Monarch Airlines Flight ZB613 took matters into their own hands and abandoned their flight from Manchester to Spain. The incident was fueled by suspicions over 2 Middle Eastern men who were also on board the plane.

"It became apparent that the reason that some of the people didn't board the plane was because somebody had overheard the gentlemen in question speaking - I think it was Arabic." - The Register

I've known otherwise well-informed Brits confuse Hebrew with Arabic before...

"It later turned out they were not associated with terrorism." - The Register

There lies the problem with racial profiling. The Nazis practiced racial profiling, it appears that our brownshirts are doing the same even while on Holiday.

The fact is, a lot of people are asking and demanding answers to awkward questions. The latest was Joan Collins who was asking what possible point there was in searching a ageing actress at an airport and checking her makeup.
If the authorities in this country really believe people like Joan Collins are going to explode some kind of device on an airliner, there's a serious problem (involving massive financial losses to airports).
To date, virtually every terrorist involved in these suicide missions has been Middle Eastern so we have to racially profile. In fact, one newspaper recently made a point of publishing every name of hijackers or terrorists involved in Madrid, Bali, 9/11, New York and London e.t.c. There were no Smiths, Changs, Gomezes, Lucianos or even Goldsteins.
To put it simply: We all recall the fable of the King going naked in his invisible suit and the fact all the wisemen and politicians claimed he wasn't in the buff at all (finally contradicted by a toddler). There is such a thing as common sense, I think, and without common sense applied these airports will go out of business. That will have huge consequences for the wider economy.
What people are saying of late is they're getting very reluctant to stand in queues for hours on end at an airport for security checks they know are quite pointless when applied to people who so far have posed no risk at all.

darkboong said:

"It became apparent that the reason that some of the people didn't board the plane was because somebody had overheard the gentlemen in question speaking - I think it was Arabic." - The Register

I've known otherwise well-informed Brits confuse Hebrew with Arabic before...

"It later turned out they were not associated with terrorism." - The Register

There lies the problem with racial profiling. The Nazis practiced racial profiling, it appears that our brownshirts are doing the same even while on Holiday.

Carrera said:

To date, virtually every terrorist involved in these suicide missions has been Middle Eastern so we have to racially profile.

We don't *have* to do anything Crappy.

However, if we *do* implement racial profiling the smarter terrorists will [censored] all over it by finding bombers who don't fit the profile. Racial profiling would not have stopped Luis Posada Carriles or McVeigh. The same principle applies in your local high-street, the more successfull shoplifters tend to be well dressed and polite. The chavs get picked up for 10 a penny, as you should know if you ever did some hard graft at a Supermarket (for example).

You have not presented one shred of evidence that banning everyone of Middle Eastern appearance from travelling will make anyone safer. In fact I believe that there is more evidence that racial profilling makes us *less* safe. So far racial profiling has killed a Brazillian, and it has failed to secure a single conviction for terrorist offences. Historical evidence from the 70s and 80s suggests that Racial Profiling led to the majority of convictions for terrorist offences being overturned some years later due to them being "unsafe" (eg: the Birmingham Six).

Carrera said:

There is such a thing as common sense, I think, and without common sense applied these airports will go out of business.

Without common sense we will see people of Middle Eastern appearence (including Israelis) being thrown off planes, refused entry to countries, being shot in dawn raids and people like you screaming for more of the same. Common sense dictates that you don't assume that terrorists are stupid, and common sense also dictates that you build bridges rather than bomb them.

So far in thousands of years of history there is bugger all evidence that violence and segregation saves lives.

A local TV show took on the issue of "Middle Eastern appearance" recently.They had (mostly Lebanese) people with fair skin,blonde and red hair...and Greek,Italian,Spanish,Irish and English people with dark hair and olive complexions.
It's nonsense.

It's the most simple, straightforward logic you could apply. Obviously language and culture is going to come into it. A tanned Spanish speaking guy is surely going to be not viewed as Middle Eastern by comparison with an Arab speaker. Correct passport information should also help.
Then you have to bear in mind, Europe has produced no European suicide bombers - none. The U.K. is unique in that it has. To spell it out, the U.K. is clearly producing British born A.Q. sympathisers and a few white activists.
So, what's the obvious, common sense tactic? Simply it's pointless searching Joan Collins which is what the public is saying. You're looking to stop and search passengers from the Middle East who would speak Arabic. So far, you're not looking for French immigrants of African descent as to date France has produced no French terrorists.
There has to be some start from the beginning. So far, all the names involved in Madrid or 9/11 are Arabic or Middle Eastern. Lately they're British but with mostly Arabic names.
Either common sense is used or the airports aren't going to survive the expense of searching every single nationality and people will simply not fly at all.

stevebaby said:

A local TV show took on the issue of "Middle Eastern appearance" recently.They had (mostly Lebanese) people with fair skin,blonde and red hair...and Greek,Italian,Spanish,Irish and English people with dark hair and olive complexions.
It's nonsense.

"So far in thousands of years of history there is bugger all evidence that violence and segregation saves lives."

So, how come airports in China are busy as ever? And how come China doesn't have a problem with Islamic terrorism or any other such problem? Simple. The Chinese have placed restrictions on organized religion as they don't want to see any similar instability introduced into society. Neither does China have an open door immigration policy. The peasants from the Chinese countryside are more than happy to fill the vacancies that keep springing up in urban China.

darkboong said:

We don't *have* to do anything Crappy.

However, if we *do* implement racial profiling the smarter terrorists will [censored] all over it by finding bombers who don't fit the profile. Racial profiling would not have stopped Luis Posada Carriles or McVeigh. The same principle applies in your local high-street, the more successfull shoplifters tend to be well dressed and polite. The chavs get picked up for 10 a penny, as you should know if you ever did some hard graft at a Supermarket (for example).

You have not presented one shred of evidence that banning everyone of Middle Eastern appearance from travelling will make anyone safer. In fact I believe that there is more evidence that racial profilling makes us *less* safe. So far racial profiling has killed a Brazillian, and it has failed to secure a single conviction for terrorist offences. Historical evidence from the 70s and 80s suggests that Racial Profiling led to the majority of convictions for terrorist offences being overturned some years later due to them being "unsafe" (eg: the Birmingham Six).

Without common sense we will see people of Middle Eastern appearence (including Israelis) being thrown off planes, refused entry to countries, being shot in dawn raids and people like you screaming for more of the same. Common sense dictates that you don't assume that terrorists are stupid, and common sense also dictates that you build bridges rather than bomb them.

So far in thousands of years of history there is bugger all evidence that violence and segregation saves lives.

Carrera said:

To date, virtually every terrorist involved in these suicide missions has been Middle Eastern so we have to racially profile.

Israel gave up racial profiling long ago at Ben Gurion airport. There were some prominent incidents where bombs were placed in the luggage of unsuspecting "girlfriends" who didn't fit the racial profile.

They've had good luck so far with "behavior profiling."

I don't know how they caught the "girlfriends," though. It makes sense to indroduce a degree of randomness into the process.

My theory has always been that multiculturalism is the biggest threat we ever faced - far more than communism. That's because once immigration gets to a certain level, you cease to exist as a nationality with a specific national profile and interest. You wind up as a huge ethnic mix of people, divided into groupings, different religions, outlooks and identities. That makes self defence almost impossible in certain scenarios because you become paralised by racial considerations.
History shows such societies wind up with more nagatives than the positives they believe they get from all the diversity.
So what if schools in London boast 70 languages? How come education back in the sixities was better when diversity was far less? There are awkward questions to be raised.
I believe it's better for everyone if we keep out own history, culture and traditions as Holland is now trying to do by insisting those who wish to live in Holland should learn fluent Dutch and integrate.

Durangodave said:

Israel gave up racial profiling long ago at Ben Gurion airport. There were some prominent incidents where bombs were placed in the luggage of unsuspecting "girlfriends" who didn't fit the racial profile.

They've had good luck so far with "behavior profiling."

I don't know how they caught the "girlfriends," though. It makes sense to indroduce a degree of randomness into the process.

Plus, you can import religion from overseas. This is when whole social groups of people are raised to be told what religion is theirs and effectively brainwashed by the beliefs passed down to them. A secular society can then unknowingly import the religion via the immigrants who arrive by the thousands, demanding society changes to accommodate their beliefs.
Thus, you get schools teaching all the diverse religions or teachers refusing to endorse evolution or science. Then the various groups who differ over their religious beliefs can literally slug it out.
This is why China has shown a lot of sense by banning the whole thing for the sake of economoc/social coherence.

darkboong said:

....There lies the problem with racial profiling. The Nazis practiced racial profiling.....

Ah the Nazis... problem with that argument is that to avoid doing what the Nazis did, I'd have to stop brushing my teeth... and stop drinking beer, among other things.

Carrera said:

....This is why China has shown a lot of sense by banning the whole thing for the sake of economoc/social coherence.

This makes as much sense as a gov't establishing a single national religion, and enforcing participation.

Who do they check on GulfAir?

Carrera said:

My theory has always been that multiculturalism is the biggest threat we ever faced

It's a Hypothesis until you can prove it Crappy. Someone who claims to have studied at University should know the difference. So far you haven't even offered one shred of evidence that has stood up to cursory peer review yet, so you don't even have a viable Hypothesis.

darkboong said:

It's a Hypothesis until you can prove it Crappy. Someone who claims to have studied at University should know the difference. So far you haven't even offered one shred of evidence that has stood up to cursory peer review yet, so you don't even have a viable Hypothesis.

This was predicted. See post #4 above. 🙄

Really it's not so complicated. You need to look at the Roman Empire - the whole history of it. Why did it fall? To my mind, 2 main reasons: (1) Immigration demographically changed society to the point Romans and Italians were displaced in the army by Germans and Gauls. We also know through archeology that Rome around 350 A.D. was more ethnically diverse than the U.S. is today.
The key point was the army and civil service, though. Take a look at what happened when barbarian tribes finally invaded Rome. The army didn't hold - that's what happened. It fragmented. Many of the recruits from the Roman side defected and joined their own fellow Gauls. There was no strength via diversity at all - just fragmentation via diversity.
(2)Christianity was also a major factor. Christians were at odds with the State in a way Jews never were. They stamped out free-thinking and tolerance which is something the French have always been aware of.

darkboong said:

It's a Hypothesis until you can prove it Crappy. Someone who claims to have studied at University should know the difference. So far you haven't even offered one shred of evidence that has stood up to cursory peer review yet, so you don't even have a viable Hypothesis.

Carrera said:

It's the most simple, straightforward logic you could apply. Obviously language and culture is going to come into it. A tanned Spanish speaking guy is surely going to be not viewed as Middle Eastern by comparison with an Arab speaker. Correct passport information should also help.
Then you have to bear in mind, Europe has produced no European suicide bombers - none. The U.K. is unique in that it has. To spell it out, the U.K. is clearly producing British born A.Q. sympathisers and a few white activists.
So, what's the obvious, common sense tactic? Simply it's pointless searching Joan Collins which is what the public is saying. You're looking to stop and search passengers from the Middle East who would speak Arabic. So far, you're not looking for French immigrants of African descent as to date France has produced no French terrorists.
There has to be some start from the beginning. So far, all the names involved in Madrid or 9/11 are Arabic or Middle Eastern. Lately they're British but with mostly Arabic names.
Either common sense is used or the airports aren't going to survive the expense of searching every single nationality and people will simply not fly at all.

Explain exactly what an Arabic name is.