Increased security at the airport

Sean over at IMHO.bm has picked up on a press release from the airport describing how flights from Bermuda are affected by today's foiled terrorist attack in the UK:

The U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security has announced that the Threat Level is now ORANGE for international airline flights to the U.S.

This will require additional screening measures at Bermuda Int'l Airport effective immediately and enhanced inspection of carry-on items for flights to the U. S.

Specifically, NO liquids may be carried by passengers onboard flights to the U. S. This ban includes gels, beverages, toothpaste, lotions, and liquor. Such items must be placed in checked baggage. Only prescription drugs and baby formula will be permitted to be taken aboard US-bound airplanes by passengers.

We recommend that all U.S.-bound passengers arrive at the airport 2½ hours ahead of their scheduled departure time. If in doubt as to allowed items, or the status of flights, passengers should contact the airline.

James G. Howes
General Manager
Bermuda Int'l Airport

Comments

[H Reardon on 10.08.06 at 14:18]

A friend in the UK trying to get back to the states was told absolutely no hand luggage at all. She couldn't even carry a book on, or her ipod.

Supposedly the liquids would be used with paper to ignite, and so therefore the paper ban. I suppose that means absolutely no paper on the flights.

Does that mean every bookstore in every airport shuts down? This is getting a bit over the top.

[Raptor on 10.08.06 at 14:29]

These are the latest airline restrictions for the U.S.--

NEW AIRLINE RESTRICTIONS
Liquids are banned from carry-on luggage and cannot be taken through security checkpoints:
* Drinks even ones purchased at the airport
* Toothpaste
* Perfume
* Shampoo
* Hair gel
* Suntan lotion and similar items

Allowances:
Baby formula and medications are permissible but must be presented for inspection at security checkpoints.

Other traveling protocol:
* All shoes must be removed and placed on an X-ray belt for screening.
* Passengers are also asked to arrive at least two hours early to allow for additional screening.
* Passengers traveling to the UK should contact their airline for information about any extra security measures or precautions that might be required. Laptop computers, mobile phones and iPods were among items banned on British flights.

Source: Transportation Security Administration, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

[H Reardon on 10.08.06 at 14:34]

You know, if noone has any hand luggage, why do we need to show up early? Security should be a breeze.

[Martin on 10.08.06 at 14:37]

Whilst I agree with H Reardon re: OTT...I have to admit to being surprised that it has taken this issue to bring about a ban on hand luggage.

If it can go in a shoe...it can go in a bag surely.

Whilst not having a clue as to how to make bombs et al...it could only have been a matter of time before it was/is attempted.

I suppose the next thing will be suicide bombers who have "bomb material" already inside of themselves when they board the plane. Can't take a genius to work out how to detonate.

Nice thought!

[Zoom on 10.08.06 at 14:45]

Kind of messes up sales of Gosling's 151 at the airport dunnit?

[ken on 10.08.06 at 14:47]

Thanks Martin! ;)

Just makes me feel that much more secure!

[SmokingGun on 10.08.06 at 14:49]

"Whilst not having a clue as to how to make bombs et al...it could only have been a matter of time before it was/is attempted."

From what I have heard the idea was to bring flammable/explosive liquids on the planes and pour them on the walls then ignite them as the planes flew over certain major cities.

I suggest we all keep an eye out for anyone who orders a Black Seal 151 just before landing.

[SmokingGun on 10.08.06 at 14:51]

Zoom - Coke! ;-)

[Canuck in Bermuda on 10.08.06 at 16:01]

Actually, I think you can only get 141 at the airport now. 151 is on the homeland "too volatile" list or something.

I'm heading to NY on Saturday, this should be fun

[Tony B on 10.08.06 at 16:04]

And another :
Update on Air Travel Security Situation
Covington International Travel will continue to monitor the air travel security situation and provide updates as needed.

Passengers should be prepared to face long delays and cancelled flights as tighter security has been enforced at European and United States airports. International passengers will be subject to additional security screening at the boarding gates.

In Europe, most short-haul (intra-country) flights have been cancelled for today. Flights are scheduled to resume on Friday under the new security restrictions. Some limited long-haul flight (UK to U.S.) flights are operating as scheduled today.

Covington International Travel recommends that all travelers check online flight status sources prior to departure for the airport. Some international flights have already been cancelled and security delays will impact the flight schedule as the day progresses. Our travel counselors are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week to handle any issues that may arise while managing your travel quickly and efficiently.

The Department of Homeland Security has taken immediate steps to increase security measures in the aviation sector in coordination with heightened security precautions in the United Kingdom. Over the last few hours, British authorities have arrested a number of extremists engaged in a plot to destroy multiple commercial passenger aircraft flying from the United Kingdom to the United States. Currently, there is no indication of similar activity within the United States. The Department of Homeland Security believes that these arrests have significantly disrupted the threat, but cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted.

Security Threat Levels at Highest Levels
Security officials at major airports in Europe and the United States have raised the security threat level to the highest level ever due to the foiled terrorist plot involving aircraft in the United Kingdom.

The United States Government has raised the nation’s threat level to Severe, or Red, for commercial flights originating in the United Kingdom bound for the United States. This adjustment reflects the Critical, or highest, alert level that has been implemented in the UK. To defend further against any remaining threat from this plot, the threat level has been raised to High, or Orange, for all commercial aviation operating in or destined for the United States.

Travel Recommendations for Flights Originating in the United States

Arrive at the airport at least two hours prior to departure for domestic flights and 3.5 hours for international flights
NO LIQUIDS OR GELS OF ANY KIND WILL BE PERMITTED IN CARRY ON BAGGAGE. ITEMS MUST BE IN CHECKED BAGGAGE. This includes all beverages, shampoo, sun tan lotion, creams, tooth paste, perfume, hair gel, and other items of similar consistency. Exception: Baby formula and medicines must be presented for inspection at the checkpoint.
Beverages purchased in the boarding area (beyond the checkpoint) must be consumed before boarding because they will not be permitted on board the aircraft.
Passengers traveling from the U.K. to the U.S. will be subject to a more extensive screening process at the boarding gate.
International passengers be aware that although you may carry laptops, etc. from the United States to the UK, all carry-on luggage is prohibited on flights originating in the UK
Cooperate with security officials and be prepared for security screening
Pack lightly - use clear plastic bags to facilitate faster screening. Review the list of TSA banned items when packing.
Additional Check-in Requirements for Flights Originating in the United Kingdom
All cabin baggage must be processed as checked baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports.

Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following items:

Pocket size wallets and pocket size purses plus contents (for example money, credit cards, identity cards etc (not handbags));
Travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports and travel tickets);
Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (eg, diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic.
Spectacles and sunglasses, without cases.
Contact lens holders, without bottles of solution.
For those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags)
Female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed
Tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs
Keys (but no electrical key fobs)
All passengers must be hand searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must be x-ray screened.

Pushchairs and walking aids must be x-ray screened, and only airport-provided wheelchairs may pass through the screening point.

In addition to the above, all passengers boarding flights to the USA and all the items they are carrying, including those acquired after the central screening point, must be subjected to secondary search at the boarding gate. Any liquids discovered must be removed from the passenger. There are no changes to current hold baggage security measures.

These measures will be constantly evaluated and updated when circumstances warrant. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact your Covington account management team.

[ian on 10.08.06 at 16:52]

I will now state the obvious....Islamic Extremists really suck (well, all extremists suck, but I reserve my wrath for those of the Muslim extremist persuasion who have likely severely altered my flying experience this week and beyond!).

[Ethiops on 10.08.06 at 17:50]

I won’t be the one to wrongly blame Arabs for American paranoia. Thank the stars the states is no longer a destination of interest for me. They can ban us from even carrying air in our lungs onboard the flight for all I care. I feel for the rest of you though.

[SmokingGun on 10.08.06 at 18:07]

In their twisted minds terrorist extremists of all persuasion care not who they kill in their attempts to hijack the mind, body and soul of all living things. Bet you one airliner they didn't target: Virgin.

Just a thought: Why is there so much hand-wringing over the idea of assassinating terrorists or wannabe's? After all, surely they will be happier in heaven with their promised virgins.

[selkieman on 10.08.06 at 18:20]

@ian > yes the ability to travel anywhere on the globe without the possibility of getting the hell bombed out of you is pretty curtailed at the moment.

Heathrow can't be very pleasant right now. But then I doubt Beirut or Basra score pretty high on the score either.

Until we can get these bomb wielding extremists under control, life's going to continue to be difficult for most of us on this planet.

Mind you, sitting here in a London that's gone 'critical' (sic), I know I'm not alone in ths city thinking that we've ourselves got into this mess by allowing Bush and Blair to roll out their very own brand of extremism over the last few years.

If anyone can explain to me what the functional difference is between what the Israelis have done to south Lebanon and the Lebanese people under the aegis of Bush & Blair, and what these 'islamic extremists' were supposed to be contemplating against the West, then maybe I could feel some wrath for these guys too.

When we've got 'end times' fetishists lobbying hard in the US for nuclear strikes against Iran, and a no-questions-asked support for Zionist Israel, in order to help bring on The Rapture, I can't help feeling that extremism isn't just the hallmark of our islamic brethern.

What they tried to do was appallng, they should be punished accordingly, and we here in the West have got a major problem when our society can be brought to a standstill by a bloke with a dodgy bottle of evian.

But we brought this on ourselves.

[ian on 10.08.06 at 18:21]

" I won’t be the one to wrongly blame Arabs for American paranoia."

Ethiops, I conceed that the Yanks are rather over the top with their Homeland Security and rainbow of "threat levels", however I do stand by my assertion that Islamic Extremists are primarily to blame for the current state of affairs regarding air travel. We could get into the whole US supports Israel, "trespassed" on Arab holy lands (at the invitation of the Saudis), etc., however the simple fact is: Pre 9/11 I could board a flight with some nail clippers, suntan lotion, and a bottle of water. Ever since the ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS hijacked some planes and killed a few people (not all of them American) - I can't. I'm inconvenienced and unhappy with the security precautions, but even you must conceed that there had to be some form of security change(s) post 9/11 as a direct result of hijackings (conducted by you know who...going in circles here).

[SmokingGun on 10.08.06 at 18:29]

My Jewish and Arab friends might think me a little bush-wacked but why can't the UN just drop a ton of leaflets over the area in order to warn everyone to stop there shit (Bushism) or clear out or the UN is going to carpet bomb the whole area and make it a 50 mile wide no-mans land.

[ian on 10.08.06 at 18:36]

"But we brought this on ourselves."

Maybe some of you Yanks and Brits feel that way...but as a Canadian I don't. I didn't deserve this any more than the Lebanese civilians deserve Israeli bombs or to be used as pawns by Hezbollah. Canadians are typically more liberal than Americans and Brits, and up until recently were more involved in peacekeeping than any proactive military action. The fact remains that the "West" may be complacent (even perhaps partners) in the continued plight of Palestinians, however we have not openly vowed to eradicate an entire race of people from the Earth. My initial post was simply a vent at the frustrations I will experience travelling this week, however I refuse to accept that I am responsible for these frustrations! That is akin to suggesting that the old tourist couple mugged in Bermuda were responsible because they had insurance at home through a company that in turn partnered with a company HQ'd in Bermuda, that hired an ex-pat, that took an opportunity away from a Bermudian, who then turned to crime. I don't buy any of it.

[SmokingGun on 10.08.06 at 18:43]

The trouble with being Canadian is you're technically North American.
That's enough to get you bombed.

[selkieman on 10.08.06 at 19:03]

@SG,Which 50 sq miles ? I'm sure you can't mean Heathrow & environs ? If so I'm might take exception......we've caught them already.......

I'm sure the over 1000 Lebanese, thirty per cent children could feel rather inconvenienced right now as well, except they're dead.

As proxy fodder in someone else's war.

If I was a muslim, with the whole 'ummah' thing going on, I'd feel extremely inconvenienced about that.

The West's stance towards the Middle East and Islam in general over the whole of the Bush Presidency created the conditions for this rise in both islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.

Until we change our policies, this kind of terrorist act that we nearly faced again today will keep on happening. And its in the nature of the technologies we're developing that this will become ever easier to do. So finding some kind of accomodation between the West and Islam might be a less messy solution.

And Ian, as for your point about not proclaiming genocide, the whole neocon agenda is nothing more than a long planned, thought through exercise in US hegemony, which besides killing lots of people is having the very unfortunate side effect of pissing an awful lot of other people off. I don't buy the idea that this is a situation where only one side bears responsiblity. There's no need to run away with a gloriously wild set of improbably causality. I know it's a simplificiation, but in many ways what we're facing is a straightforward quid pro quo.

And us white folks in the West, not matter how lovely and liberal we are, have let them do this. Our present set of leaders may be responsible but we are all cupable. Until such time as we can get rid of the whole sorry bunch running USA central, we're all in the firing line whether we like it or not. And I personally think we're in for the long haul on this one, even if we do eventually get the politics right.

And I agree its a right royal pain in the ass. And as for Canadians being liberal, I'd be just as liberal as you wanted me to be if I had the US living right next door . ;o)

[ian on 10.08.06 at 19:07]

The trouble with being Canadian is you're technically North American.
That's enough to get you bombed

Posted by SmokingGun on 10.08.06 at 18:43

Great..equal opportunity target with higher taxes.

[ian on 10.08.06 at 19:13]

"...Until such time as we can get rid of the whole sorry bunch running USA central, we're all in the firing line whether we like it or not."

selkie - suffice to say that I agree with the above. Unfortunately, as you stated, even if we get the politics right, this "thing" will not fade into that good night anytime soon. Oh well, as I pack, I pray (or would if I was religious) that my checked bags will arrive. Otherwise I will be sans toiletries et al. Forced to buy in Bermuda I suppose...is there a link to a price thread anywhere herein ;)

[Bill Cook on 10.08.06 at 19:32]

Just read a great book by Simon Reeve THE NEW JACKALS and the future of terrorism.

It quotes Ramzi Yousef who failed to destroy the world trade centre and Osama Bin Laden who succeeded spectacularly.

It is very well documented with actual references and both men made recorded statements that the reason for their actions was because of the treatment of the Palestinians by both Israel and America.

There are app 1.25 billion Muslims in the world one out of every 5 inhabitants and clearly very few are terrorists but one would never know with the media being as biased as it is.

It is very glib to say WE never tried to wipe anyone off the face of the earth but try telling that to the Aboriginies of Australia The Native Americans the Hivara Indians of SA and now the Kalihari Bushmen of Botswana.

The nightmare of terrorism needs to be closely examined honestly and clearly when you count the corpses they seem to be mostly Muslim by a very considerable margin.

Why should they be concerned at our bemoaning our hardship when we obviously are immune to theirs ?

700,000 men women and children are homeless over the last 4 weeks but not too much concern over that tragedy.

[SmokingGun on 10.08.06 at 19:34]

selkieman - I thought the Watford Gap pretty much took care of isolating the southern sophisticates from the northern neanderthals? ;-)

But don't forget Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map. Even they don't care if a few muslim kids get in the way.

The trouble with the west is we're so full of know-it-alls and have the attitude of been there, done that now do it our way. Imagine someone growing up in poverty in a country and all of a sudden being told to get with it. Hundreds of years of evolution crammed into a matter of a few years because some capitalist sharks decide they need your cheap labour, resources and to sell you stuff you don't need. No wonder there heads are spinning - and who comes to the rescue to save them from the devil? If it ain't Bin Laden it's some religious fanatic out to rule the world. Yup - this is a battle that's going to be waged for years to come.

ian - my suggestion is you relocate full-time to Bermuda. Less taxes and a smaller target.

[Martin on 10.08.06 at 21:53]

Bill...

Nicely put. It's sad that people don't generally like or face up to the truth - but you are right nonetheless.

What's worse is that in the current middle east conflict, the West "slavishly' supports Israel as she bombs children/women to oblivion on the premise that the enemy lies within.

Ah yes...regretfully, there will always be civilian casualties in this type of offensive.

Ah yes...politics!!

[Njegos on 10.08.06 at 22:18]

Can you imagine flying for 7 hours without reading? That is the future of commerical aviation according to a number of security "experts". So my question is when will books and magazines be banned from high-speed trains? Surely the potential for catastrophe is just as great. Think of the Madrid bombings. What is interesting is that for many people, commuting on public transport is their only chance to read. But of course who needs to read in Bush's America or Blair's Britain. Just stick giant video screens at airport terminals and train stations with 24-hour junk television and coverage of Bush and Blair's press conferences. What more do we need to know? De-contextualise every event and keep people in fear and ignorance.

Didn't Orwell write about this?

[Turtle on 10.08.06 at 23:08]

ian:

You can expect terror threats in Canada soon:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has taken Israel's side in the Isreali Lebanon conflict. He described Israel's response to the kidnapping of two soldiers by Hezbollah as a 'measured response' and has echoed Bush on every possible foreign policy.

Liberal????? Ha!!! Not any more, mate.

It looks like Canada's hard earned reputation as a neutral peacekeeper/observer has been annihilated.

[save d cut on 10.08.06 at 23:19]

I dont know about anyone else, but the media and its ability to heighten fear levels people has worked for me.

I have to fly to one of these US cities from a British territory on a named airline this coming Wednesday. The reports that they may not have all in custody, is frightening.

[Jamaican Q on 11.08.06 at 00:04]

Turtle...and just when i was thinking of relocating to Canada soon! I wonder if I am better off in a little no name island riddled with poverty...

[Amin Swan on 11.08.06 at 01:47]

The silly thought that you can Blow a Jumbo Jet up with friggin sun-tan lotion or Make-up just tickles me. Yes, it's getting a little over the top.

[Lost in Flatts on 11.08.06 at 05:15]

So to Ethiops: It's the West's paranoia to blame that we can't travel with sunscreen? Nadda to do with the slightly brainwashed terrorists trying to blow up the plane with a bomb in a sunscreen container? Does that mean it's the brits fault there are no trash cans at train stations? Nothing to do with those pesky bombings? Perhaps police wearing bullet proof vests is their own paranoid fault? What kind of logic is that?!

It's so easy in a position of comfort and relative security to critisize the actions of the west. I don't like Bush at all, but don't kid yourselves, do you really think there would be no more terrorists if he hadn't gone into Iraq? There'd be no Hezbollah if Israel weren't bombinb Beirut? There'd be no Al Qaeda if there was no Israel? I fail to see the logic of moaning about situations that in reality do exist, and blaming the leaders trying to now deal with it. Do you honestly believe that if the US were like, sorry guys, we screwed up with that whole Iraq thing, we're leaving, peace be to all of you - that Bin Laden would issue a report on Al Jazeera saying "Oh George, it's cool man, everyone makes mistakes, we'll stop the terrorism thing now and go back to our wonderful lives in peace". Please.

In my opinion this whole sh*t storm is the fault of a whole lot of parties, both east and west, and the person training up the suicide bomber is certainly no better in my mind then the leaders of western countries. I think it's the naive and hopeful view that if the west start acting nicely all of this si going to go away and we'll all get along. Given that, what other options do we have?

[SarahT on 11.08.06 at 06:40]

Lost in Flatts. You're 100% correct, there WOULD be no Hizbullah if Israel wasn't bombing Beiruit. Hizbullah was born out of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 in yet another completely screwed up attempt to wipe out Palestinians who were hiding out there and causing trouble. It took them nearly 20 years but Hizbullah threw them out, and then held Lebanon together by a thread during the civil war, providing such basic necessities as drinking water to those who the Government wasn't saving.

The military wing of this organisation is just one aspect of it. I don't condone it at ALL, it's terrorism, but there's a reason for it.

Al-Qaeda has SOME of its roots in the Arab-Israeli conflict also, though it comes more from US imperialism elsewhere in the region. And if Bush/Blair hadn't made the monumental cock-up of going in to Iraq then yes, I believe there would be LESS terrorists around than there are today.

I'm not saying that if the West pulled out entirely now and left the East to it or "started acting nicely", as you rightly ironically said, then all the problems would be solved. All I'm saying is that yup, we created this mess with an outrageous foreign policy crammed up the wazoo with western imperial hubris. (By "we", of course, I don't mean Bermuda, but our foreign policy is a whole other debate.)

A Lebanese fellow from Oxford spoke at my residence the other day - it was a pretty mild speech, all things considered, though he did get in to a rumble with a few Israelis in the audience. Israel must confront its dark side, he said. Humanity cannot allow Israel to get away with the crimes it is currently committing. He was greeted with applause from the packed audience - except for from the three Israelis, of course.

The West has its dark side also and we need to confront it. We are not the good guys. This is NOT a battle of good and evil. We also need to stop saying "what other options do we have" - the options are right in front of us. Listen, for once. Figure out what we're doing to cause these people to become radicalised and attack us. It's not out of nowhere. We can't change the past but we can certainly step in now and stop Israel from continuing with this madness. Hizbullah is not innocent but of all the villains in this piece Israel is the greater one this time.

Then we need to stop allowing Saudi Arabia to get away with their atrocious human rights record because we want their oil; stop trying to force democracy on to the fake, cobbled-together "country" of Iraq that we created; stop hypocritically hampering democracy in other places when it doesn't suit our interests (Hamas and Hizbullah being prime examples), keep the majority of Arab-oil interests in Arab hands; quit this double-standard on nuclear weapons - well, I could go on. Make the two-state solution happen.

In short if we did this the terrorists would lose a great deal of their motives for attacking the west. There is PLENTY that we can do OTHER than continuing to allow Israel to act like this with our implicit support, and continue with this unbelievable foreign policy. We made this mess, we can't change the past but we can certainly change direction now.

[Lost in Flatts on 11.08.06 at 07:12]

I somewhat agree that in the long term, that the west must stop the agressive moves into the middle east, I've never condoned any of their forrays into those countries, and still can't believe that anyone in the US actually supported the Iraqi invasion. But in the short term I see no other option than trying to just survive the current batch of terrorists, whatever that takes.

I'm not sure I buy into this being solely an invasion-led problem, there is that whole religion issue. I don't honestly believe that such conflicting religions can all coexist peacably next to each other. Like it or not, alot of Israeli's are fiercely zionist, in the same way that there are a whole bunch of Muslims who'd quite like to see every last Israeli sent out of the country in body bags. That isn't just a conflict of land or foreign policy. Maybe that's what its turned into in the last century, but this obviously isn't a new phenonmenon.

It seems to me that the solution alot of scholars and educated people put forward is to stop all interfereing foreign policy with middle-eastern countries; (except of course interjecting for human rights) abandon Israel and let it fend for itself, or perhaps even threaten to take action against it; get the hell out of Iraq (and I'd imagine be replaced by some kind of UN led group, cause it certainly can't be left as it is); stop being favourable to nations just because they have oil; and generally stay out of things that aren't the west's business.

All of those things are well and good, but they're not going to protect us from being blown up on our next transatlantic flight. I fear if you look in a macro and historical context that people are inherently nasty things, and if you take away one reason for these terrorists to hate the west, they'll just come up with another one. I'd love to think I'm wrong, and that if we took all the steps above then things would right themselves, but I just fear it won't happen. My only long term solution: abandon religion, move Israel to some small plot of land in the midwest with a similar climate, tap Alaska for oil and the US stay on its side of the Atlantic. Sigh.

[Bill Cook on 11.08.06 at 07:26]

Sarah

You are on target, and the hypocritical bullshit that America cannot negotiate with terrorists makes one wonder about the many invitations to lunch Gerry Adams had at Whitehouse and his marching thru NYC on St Patricks day parade and the money collectecd in the pubs to buy Semtex to blow up innocent civilians in England, Bushes closest allies
Of course half the population and voters have Irish connections.

The truth is it only takes a few terrorists to cause mayhem and now we have an estimated 2000 Hizbullah militant militia who are holding off 30,000 IDF armed with the finest state of the art weaponery supplied by the US free of charge and they are taking a cut ass proving that they are not so hot.

Saddam has been proven correct with the nightmare of Iraq it is a total failure.
The infrastructure is in ruins with death and destruction everywhere and now a quagmire that is proving impossible to get out of.

The main archetecht Wolfowitz and his neo con cronies are hiding from view after the mess they created.

Israel will refuse to give up the West Bank and will never allow for a Palestinian state to exist and will find another way to blame it on Palestinians just watch it play out.

90% of Israelis support the death of civilians and destruction of Lebanon but would rush to the bargaining table if a similar fate had been inflicted on Haifa and Tel Aviv.

Giving up Gaza with 8000 settlers protected by 30000 IDF and surrounded by 1.5 million Palestinians was impractical and was a well televised PR move to bullshit the uninformed west but then Bush gave them a re settling fund and they used it to rebuild on the stolen West Bank.

The media inc all those uninformed idiots who are really news readers with make up ask all the wrong questions which portray one side of this mess.

However the world is now a much more dangerous place to live in not safer since this insanity of the pre emptive strike on Iraq and the support of the state of ISrael with the world against the US and GB as never before in living memory.

[Lost in Flatts on 11.08.06 at 07:30]

Sorry, just to clarify, I do agree with you Sarah on the steps we should take, I just worry that the way the world is now it won't improve things much. But it is of course better than continuing to exacerbate the problem. Just feelin a bit down with the world this morning...rare for a Friday! :)

[Njegos on 11.08.06 at 09:07]

Lost in Flatts:

Blair pretends there is no link between al Qaeda related atrocities and British foreign policy. Why then have there been no attacks on neutral countries such as Ireland or Sweden? Why are experienced FO diplomats damning Blair for his reckless disregard of British interests? Something does not add up here.

Let's say that there are some terrorist groups prepared to strike irrespective of our interventionist behaviour in the Middle East or elsewhere (which I rather doubt). Surely this is no excuse not to minimise the risk to the general public by pursuing a responsible foreign policy.

Blair's policies are a miserable failure and therefore he must accept the lion's share of the blame for the current sorry state of affairs.

Terrorism does not grow in a vacuum.

[Lost in Flatts on 11.08.06 at 09:40]

Njegos - I'm with you the point where you get to 'Blair's policies are a mieserable failure and therefore he must accept the lion's share of the blame'. I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here, I agree alot of UK and US policies have been pretty poorly planned, and don't try to condone or justify them. I just don't like the attitude of 'well you know, we supported the US invasion so it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that there'll be people willing to blow themselves up in an effort to kill as many of us as possible'. I can't get used to the general sentiment on here that we should actually feel bad for the bombers, and that we've brought this upon ourselves. There has to be accountability on both sides.

The western world should stop Israel bombing the hell out of Lebanon, but the Lebanese government should also stop Hizbullah from bombing the hell out of Israel.

[H Reardon on 11.08.06 at 09:54]

Wow, we have a bunch of Ward Churchills here today.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/03/16/eichman-050316.html

Ya'll enjoy your liberal lovefest. I'm sure you are right, the world would be such a great place with all of the Taliban and Baathist regimes left to run amuck. They are really nice people (well, except to their women and people who don't believe exactly as they do, but never mind that). It was 'merica and Dubya that just made them meanies.

Tell the widows of 9/11 that Clinton made the right choice in not taking out Osama in 1998. Let's just leave them all alone.

[selkieman on 11.08.06 at 10:16]

@LIF (even in devil's advocate mode) And how precisely is the Lebanese gov supposed to do that ? The West & Israel has embargoed the supply of any weaponery to them. Also Hizbullah are part of the democratically elected government of the country, so you would be asking them to declare war on themselves.

I dont think anyone on here is arguing that we should be soft on the bombers or what we're calling extremist islamic fundamentalism.

We're just saying we shouldnt be soft on our elected governments who are pursuing a hegenomic war against the Middle East.

The Israelis have planned this offensive for quite some time, and used the 'kidnapping' of their soldiers as an excuse to obliterate the progress that Lebanon has made over the past few years, but its only one small part of the US neocon cabal rolling out a well-planned campaign to de-stabilise the Middle East.

I see no evidence that there is anything even-handed about the present US administration. We in the West can do little more than support a well-targeted campaign to deal with terrorism (NOT what we've got at the moment), - but we're not going to change the darker side of Islamic fundamentalism. We could do one hell of a lot about removing right wing christian fundamentalism from our body politic.

Personally, I think we will only be able to claim equal accountability after Blair, Bush et al are indicted for war crimes at the Hague. And the likelihood of that happening is ......

and HR > the Bush regime has had ample opportunity to remove Bin Laden. They haven't taken it either. It is they who have let Al-Q etc run amok, and provided them with a huge hinterland of previous unavailable supporters. In the Clinton era, the threat from Al-Q was real, but not present. After 9/11, the US admin was in a much more powerful position to do something about it. They chose not to, and attacked Afganistan and Iraq instead. I wonder why ?

[Bill Cook on 11.08.06 at 10:26]

Since the war ended in 1945 the US has bombed

China 1945 Korea 1950 53 China 1950 53 Guatamala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959 60 Guatamala 1960 Congo 1964 Peru 1965 Laos 1965 73 Vietnam 1961 73 Cambodia 1960 70 Guatamala 1967 69 Grenada 1983 Libya 1986 El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1980 Panama 1989 Iraq 1991 2002 Sudan 1998 Afganistan 1998 Yugaslavia 1990 Afganistan 2001 Iraq 2003.

Somehow I dont feel the world is any safer and I feel sure that the relatives of the 100,000 civilians in Iraq killed by the invasion feel liberated.

[Pompous G. Windbag III jnr. on 11.08.06 at 10:41]

Tell the widows of 9/11 that Clinton made the right choice in not taking out Osama in 1998. Let's just leave them all alone.

Posted by H Reardon on 11.08.06 at 09:54

Whats up Harry? No decaff this morning? You're beginning to make that hideous cretin Anne Coulter look like Umberto Eco by comparison...

P

[silencedogood on 11.08.06 at 10:45]

Did you see the weather forcast today? I didn't reallize it called for so much hot air?

I love the logic of "christian fundamentalists" whose M.O. is politics = Al Qaeda whose M.O. is indiscriminate killing via suicide bombers and how Bill lists WWII, Korea, and Iraq 1991 in with his list of out of context accusations.

Perhaps the US knew of 9/11 but let it happen or maybe they planned it! It's a conspiracy you see.

It's a good thing you guys aren't in charge of anyone's foreign policy. At best you guys are simplifying to an unbelievable degree, at worst you come off like a bunch of nutters. Have fun.

[Bill Cook on 11.08.06 at 11:00]

I think that the US had too many conflicting intelligence agencies competing with each other to be truly effective re Sept 11 but the revelations coming out in spite of attempts to block them put America in greater danger not less and today with a porous border and insecure ports and containers not to say the nuclear facilities which America spends less on defending than it does on the Israeli nuclear facility in Dimona, how much sense does that make ???

[selkieman on 11.08.06 at 11:16]

sgd > whilst I'd happily admit to a bit of nutterdom as the next man, the links I'm making between christian fundamentalism, christian zionism, rapture politics and the New American Century are from main stream US press sources - and the horses' mouths. Google's just one step away, so let yr fingers do the walking.......

You dont need conspiracy to explain what's going on here, just one vastly arrogant monmuental cock-up of a kind of politics, which if we're lucky, is in its death throes. And if we're unlucky, will continue to cause ours.

[SmokingGun on 11.08.06 at 11:30]

A long time ago I just started living life with the assumption that I might end up on plane with a suicide bomber on it. As long as there are enough people doing their homework on catching the terrorists and as long as most security checks were valid I figured I had to just try to live as normal a life as possible.

Planes will be bombed. People will get killed. This has happened and will continue to happen. Having to worry about every little thing is just too much effort. The odds are so much in our favour that it's just not worth it. We don't live in Iraq where just going to the market could get you killed.

If you want peace of mind when flying then just invest in the Big Cat Re-insurance companies, the arms manufacturers, the security devise manufacturers, the oil companies. You'll make a ton of money off these businesses that make maoney off of people's fear. Then cash out and buy your own little private jet for all your travel needs. Then you can decide what's allowed on board.

[thisgrassman on 11.08.06 at 11:31]

http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/index.html

[Bill Cook on 11.08.06 at 11:39]

Smoke many a true word was spoken in jest !

Sales of private jets and lease companies are projected to boom but a little out of my reach.

Arms manufacturers seem very happy these days.

[SmokingGun on 11.08.06 at 11:54]

Bill - many a true word is spoken in jets. ;-)

Eclipse Aviation has just received FAA approval and have orders in the thousands. Honda is getting into the business in a few years. These micro-jets start at around 1.3 mill. With fractional ownership already in play you'd be amazed at what will become affordable. I've already got my ride lined up. Even got the Pilot - my buddy who's a retired FBI Pilot.

Just bring the tonic water... we'll have the Gin on board. ;-)

[H Reardon on 11.08.06 at 12:04]

Pompous -

Name calling - the last ditch tactic of the left. Are you a graduate of the Al Franken school of Liberal Policy?

Bill -

Use some punctuation so I can follow your argument. Are you saying that the US has poor border security? Not sure I see the relevance, but ok, agreed. I'm glad our British allies are on top of things. Well done chaps.

"the Bush regime has had ample opportunity to remove Bin Laden."

Hmmm... Well, Bush is a politician with approval ratings in the crapper. One of the few ways to pull them up, would be to capture or kill Bin Laden. So logic tells me, your point just simply isn't true and really makes no sense.

"In the Clinton era, the threat from Al-Q was real, but not present."

USS Cole - Oct 2000

WTC Bombing Feb 1993

US Embassy bombings August, 1998

All, by the way, in the Clinton era.

What other attacks has the US avoided by going into Afganistan and Iraq? We will never know.

[Git on 11.08.06 at 13:11]

Returning to airport security, I'd be interested to hear views on unfettered racial profiling at airports, etc. in the wake of yesterday's events.

Seems to me that the wages of political correctness are paid by the vast majority of us who OBVIOUSLY pose no terrorist threat. Vis-a-vis the 80 y/o granny forced to remove her shoes and endure a frisking. We've all seen it and rolled our eyes. A futile waste of time, energy and resources. All this in an effort to appear 'fair'.

I realize that only the smallest fraction of the Nation of Islam pose a threat, but if the innocent Muslims are truly interested in peace and harmony as they so often proclaim, then they should understand why it is necessary to single them out in today's environment. If they don't, well... tough shit.

I'm sure those of you espousing the liberal mantra will be highly offended at this suggestion, but I wholeheartedly believe the time for pussy-footing around this eminent threat has passed.

[H Reardon on 11.08.06 at 14:04]

Smoking -

Those Eclipse 500s have a range of 1,100 miles as I recall. Don't think that can fly to BDA since it can't turn back if need be. Do you know for sure if this plane can fly here?

I'd definately be interested to know.

[Cancundreaming on 11.08.06 at 14:11]

Git,

Firstly, what I think you're talking about is in fact not racial profiling. If you're focusing on Islam, one should note tit transcends one single race. (Can one 'racially profile’ Christians? of course not, because being Christian tells you nothing of what race they're going to be)

And I think it's important that we use language carefully and know exactly what we're talking about and what we're not talking about. What I think you're talking about is closer to culture or religious profiling.

And in this respect profiling is already practiced. I think we all can agree that someone from Syria visiting the US is going to get far more attention then someone from the Sweden. But this generally happens on the backend before they actually board the flight... In fact the visa waiver program used worldwide is a form of profiling.

I don't think all profiling is bad, but I don’t think we need to get into that for the simple reason that what you're suggesting Git won't work. If the culprit is fundamentalist Islam then one needs to recognize that Islam is practiced worldwide by many different, races, cultures and ethnic groups. I think we should note that most people are far more complicated then the nice little boxes and labels we all often use.

If we declared that only the “middle eastern” looking or sounding people (quotations of course) will get security attention. What do you think the “TERROISTS” (I capitalize it only because it’s such a silly silly word) would conclude? Perhaps they should stop sending middle eastern looking or sounding people.

I’m sorry, but this I find very very silly. “I'm sure those of you espousing the liberal mantra will be highly offended at this suggestion” I find it silly because conservatives, or those that like to call themselves conservatives, really like to use the word liberal in a bad sense, but often have no understanding of what it means in a broad sense or what it means individually. Or think liberal is simply the opposite of what they believe, which of course is bad. So if you can tell me what you mean by “liberal” I would appreciate it so we can understand what mantra you think liberals are supposedly espousing…

[Njegos on 11.08.06 at 19:07]

Reardon:

If you bomb the shit out of people, those same people will try to bomb the shit out of you.

If you give billions of dollars to other countries to bomb the shit out of people, those same people will try to bomb the shit out of you.

If you kidnap thousands of people, those same people will try to kidnap you.

It's called common sense, Reardon, and it's neither liberal nor conservative. No wonder the war-hawk cum "conscience of the Senate" (ie. Joe Lieberman) got his pompous Zionist backside kicked in the Conneticut primary. America is waking up.

More justice is coming.

[ian on 11.08.06 at 19:45]

Njegos...

If you are really nice to certain people...they accept you to your face and scheme behind your back.

If you give them billions in aid...they squander it on the "ruling class" and for their own political & financial gain.

If you release hundreds of "kidnapped people", they come back at you with new weapons paid for by your charitable aid.

Common sense is a very Western approach - very off the mark when dealing with people who's version of peace means the complete and total annihilation of Jews and the democratic Western world (Christian and otherwise).

America is thankfully waking up to the fact that Iraq was a mistake - a very costly and stupid mistake. However do not for one moment compare the justifed "war" against Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and other locales with Iraq. Common sense dictated that pursuing Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban patrons was the right thing to do post 9/11. The debate over Israel will never end, however anyone with half a brain can clearly see that the Jews have never been intent on destroying every Arab in the Middle East. How do you reconcile that vs. the stated objective of Iran's president to completely annihilate every Jew in the region?

Anyway, apologies Limey for a somewhat off-track thread. I steer it back to my original thought - I am damn pissed at the extremists who DIRECTLY caused this new air travel fiasco.

[Martin on 11.08.06 at 21:47]

Back to the original thread...(just for a change)...

I hadn't realised until today when I picked a friemd up off AA into BDA, that you now cannot have a drink of any sort on the plane. Maybe it's just AA.

On a short hop that will be fine...anyone know what is happening though on BA?

[Njegos on 11.08.06 at 22:44]

Ian:

I am glad you acknowledge the insanity of America and Britain's war in Iraq. However, the rest of your post contains distortions and half-truths.

For instance, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad never said that every Jew in the region must be annihilated. In fact, what he said was "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" echoing a phrase used in speeches by Ayatollah Khomeini. Your misquote reveals an obvious bias.

Secondly, you talk approvingly about the war against Islamic extremism in Afghanistan. (BTW, when are we going stand up to Jewish extremism? Do you like what you see in Lebanon?) In fact, you barely scratched the surface because in truth we have aligned ourselves with some pretty unsavoury, even murderous characters to remove the primitive Taliban. I won't go into the prisoners sold to us by warlords and shipped off to Guantanamo, or the incessant bombings of wedding parties and other mistaken targets, or the way we have helped breathe life back into opium agriculture, or the general lawlessness throughout the country - we'll leave these for another thread. Please understand, however, that America has given up on Afghanistan and that is why they are busy palming it off to a hapless NATO.

Lastly, several of your statements are tainted by extreme xenophobia, not to mention paranoia (eg. Common sense is a very Western approach - very off the mark when dealing with people who's version of peace means the complete and total annihilation of Jews and the democratic Western world (Christian and otherwise).). Is this really your view of the world?

[Raptor on 12.08.06 at 09:30]

Martin, you wrote, “cannot have a drink of any sort on the plane” (AA). Does that mean that no drinks were served, or that your friend could not bring a drink on to the plane?

The latter is now the case with all the airlines we’re familiar with. But maybe they stopped all liquids, including airline-provided ones during flight, for a time. I can't see how they could do that on long flights either. And I certainly hope that's not a new policy.

[Martin on 12.08.06 at 13:59]

Raptor...

I didn't ask him to be honest. Like you, I find it difficult to believe that liquids "in total" will not be permissable...although the airlines might argue that to provide them requires them to introduce their own procedures to ensure liquids are safe.

I guess they might remind themselves that they are in the business of "flying" not feeding people, and rationalise it that way if they need to.

Is this also the end of duty free shops. (There goes my beloved Jack D)

[loki on 12.08.06 at 15:08]

Now, what REALLY pissed me off was the reaction of the UK Muslim community. Watching the BBC News, I was astounded to hear members of the community outraged, not at the fact that 22 members of their community may have conspired to mass murder thousands of innocent civilians, but at how they will now be hassled because of their religion. Unbelievable.....

[Njegos on 12.08.06 at 15:27]

BAA warns: Airport checks "not sustainable"

Just like our god-damned foreign policy.....

[Njegos on 12.08.06 at 15:33]

Loki:

Why does it bother you? If I recall correctly, loki, you are not outraged by what your government has done in Iraq.

[loki on 12.08.06 at 15:40]

My government? That would be the Bermuda government and, furthermore, I've repeatedly spoken out against the war in Iraq. Of course, we all know that the best way to solve the problem of Muslim terrorish was to invade a secular country such as Iraq. Invading Afghanistan I believe was the right move, but not Iraq. The world is a more dangerous place for the invasion of Iraq.

And the reason I'm ourtraged at the reaction of some UK muslims was that they hardly do themelves any favours by ranting on TV about police harrassment, rather than comdemning those that would murder thousands.

[loki on 12.08.06 at 15:50]

Actually, in fairness - I should say that it isn't that I don't support the war, I just don't support it for the reasons cited by the USA and UK governments as a basis for the war. You don't lie as a basis for launching a war just because you don't think you'll get broad support otherwise.

[Njegos on 12.08.06 at 16:32]

Loki:

Thank you for the clarification. I am still puzzled by your comments about the Iraq war. If you rule out the lies of Bush and Blair, what basis remained for going to war?

When people react in rather unexpected ways, I often take it as a signal that we are not getting the full story. All you saw was what the editors at the BBC wanted you to see. Maybe you were watching Islamic fanatics. OTOH, perhaps you were watching law abiding UK citizens who dread the fallout and fear for the security of their families. Let's face it, Britain is not going through a hug-a-Muslim phase. Have you ever been in such a similar situation? Maybe you have.

[stuart J Hayward on 12.08.06 at 16:37]

loki writes:
they hardly do themelves any favours by ranting on TV about police harrassment, rather than comdemning those that would murder thousands

It helps to remember that what we see on TV is the TV reporters' and news editors' choice. It may well be that they actually filmed but didn't air (or chose not to film) Muslims condemning the perpetrators.

[Njegos on 12.08.06 at 16:40]

Thank you Stuart. The media can be a very dangerous weapon at times like these.

[Raptor on 12.08.06 at 17:25]

The people who turned them in were Muslims.

[loki on 12.08.06 at 17:28]

....now, if we can just get Israel to stop bombing the shit out of Lebanon....

[stuart J Hayward on 12.08.06 at 17:46]

Loki,

This may help -- if only to assuage feelings of inadequacy.

[Njegos on 13.08.06 at 01:38]

The imbecile Bush tries to link Hezbollah with the alleged plane bombers

[Bill Cook on 13.08.06 at 07:39]

Thanks Stuart,

Greatly appreciated indeed, lets hope we each can contact 10 people.

We can e mail Bush at Whitehouse too.

[loki on 13.08.06 at 16:22]

Off topic (for which I apologise), but Smoking and Reardon, I've been keeping my eye on the development of the Eclipse 500 Very Light Jet ever since I heard that someone was trying t0 develop the first sub-million dollar private jet. The price has now gone up to $1.6M, which is still a bargain compared to other private jets, because it makes fractional ownership of jets to people other than the super-rich. There are plenty of (admittedly well-off) people that I know who could group together with friends to buy one. The kicker is that it can't be operated in an out of Bermuda because of the 1,100 mile range. I checked with a pilot friend, who assured me that the jet would need to be able to fly too and from Bermuda in order to be used, as there are no airports to divert to if you can't land. It would be great for use in the Carribean, US and Canada, though. One of the first things that I thought of when I heard about the implications of the current terror threat was that manufacturers of private aircraft are going to be doing a roaring trade over the next few years.

[H Reardon on 14.08.06 at 09:31]

Loki,

Thanks, that is what I assumed with the 1,100 mile range. The website of the Eclipse 500 mentions flying within the 48 contiguous states. You are right, the price and fuel costs could make this a viable option for many more people--just not to Bermuda.

[H Reardon on 14.08.06 at 09:39]

Stuart,

Thanks for the link, but I'm looking for the one to send to Hezbollah. Any help there? Thanks in advance.

[Njegos on 14.08.06 at 09:53]

Reardon:

Of course you are because everyone knows that 40 Israelis are worth 1000 Lebanese.

[H Reardon on 14.08.06 at 10:09]

Let me get this straight.

One targets militants shooting at them, the other targets innocent civilians sunning themselves on the beach.

One wears uniforms and says "hey your fight is with me," and the other wears no uniform, shoots rockets at random from hospitals and apartment buildings, and runs away like the cowards they are.

You are right, we really have to stop those Israelis.

Is it because we know the Islamic Fashishsihsihsts (to quote Bush) are too far gone to even reason with, and so we put our pressure on the reasonable ones?

Where is the outrage at Hezbollah? Where is the outrage at Lebanon for not being able to control these wackos? Are we following the Noam Chomsky doctrine of whoever has the greater might must be in the wrong?

[Bill Cook on 14.08.06 at 10:30]

Reardon,

I wish you luck in trying to contact those Hezbollah, after all 30,000 IDF and 200 tanks helicopters, and all those big binoculars, nightscopes etc have not had much success.

The body count reveals that the baby murdering IDF have killed most civilians and then again all Israelis of age are members of the IDF and are legitimate targets in a war I would think.

30,000 armed with the most advanced equiptment v/s a handful of opponents with no tanks or helicopters is hardly a level playing field !!

If the Israelis complain ask them to change places with the Palestinians for a while, the cry babies will soon shut up.

[Bill Cook on 14.08.06 at 10:36]

Those Palestinians sunning themselves on the beach were shelled by Israeli gun ships and the family was murdered, all but those in sea swimming that is.

Was that what you were referring to ?

Would you like more such information ?

[ace on 14.08.06 at 11:50]

Phil,

Don't you think Bill's use of this site for his twisted propaganda campaign is getting a bit much?

[H Reardon on 14.08.06 at 12:09]

Bill,

So that is a "Yes" to whoever has the greater might is clearly in the wrong.

[Lost in Flatts on 14.08.06 at 12:20]

Bill - Do you support Hizbollah's current action? I mean it's clear that the IDF are far from a nice group of peace-loving people, but you seem to be a proponent of them being attacked. Keep in mind, a lot of them are just normal kids taken in the draft.

I'm a bit with Reardon on this - it seems as though a lot of posters on here want to villify the US/UK/Israel and just take the actions of Hizbollah or the airline terrorists as a given thing, I just can't understand why they shouldn't shoulder the blame.

[ian on 14.08.06 at 13:12]

This thread is riddled with every possible "justification" for Islamic terrorism. I sincerely hope that all you Hezbollah and Al Quaeda sympathizers (Bill, Njegos, et al) plan a trip to the Middle East and meet up with your so called "freedom fighters". Be sure to tell them you come from the West, enjoy freedom of speech, equality for women, freedom of religion, and democracy. Include gay rights (provided you're not homophobes) and I'm sure they'll accept you for who you are and welcome you in with open arms (as a human shield or hostage?). I do not justify the foolish war in Iraq, but I do lump you lot in with those who stood idly by when the Nazi's rose to power in the late 30's. Your anti-Israel tirades expose you for the anti-semites that you are. Remember - this recent military action started when Hezbollah crossed into Israel and abducted two graduate student, part-time members of the IDF. There was ZERO action on the Lebanon border until Hezbollah decided to capitalize on the Gaza abduction crisis and get in on the fray. You conveniently forget that now don't you? This whole thing never had to happen if Hezbollah had stayed within the borders of Lebanon and not deliberately provoked Israel. Of course, you will find some means of justifying that action too won't you!

[The Limey on 14.08.06 at 13:24]

ace

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Lost in Flatts

Rather than arguing about who is to blame, I think we need to ask "why?" - and when we answer, ask "why?" again.

Why would someone think that blowing up a plane while they were on it was a good idea?

Is it because they hate democracy, as George Bush contends? If so, why?

Is it because they believe that Westerners are decadent? If so, why? What aspects of Western life offend them? Why are they prepared to die to kill a couple of hundred Westerners when they must know that Western culture will never be eradicated that way? And why do the US and UK seem to remain the focus of their attacks? Why has Norway not been attacked, or France?

It may very well be that some of the things about us that drive them to do what they do are things that we are unable or unwilling to change. While we can still take out the terrorists without understanding what motivates them, I think that we're more likely to defeat the ideology that drives them if we are honest in trying to understand its origins.

[The Limey on 14.08.06 at 13:27]

ian

It's possible to despise the actions of the Israeli government without being anti-semitic, just as it's possible to despise the actions of the US administration without being anti-American.

[H Reardon on 14.08.06 at 13:56]

Limey,

Excellent questions--very well put.

I tend to think that a lot of the blame rests with the extreme radical Islamist leaders that have seized on an opportunity to win more people over to their cause. These are smart men, obviously charasmatic leaders who are able to convince many Muslims that the US/UK/Israel are out to get them. These people have a very narrow view of Islam, and are jumping at this opportunity to convert as many to their f-ed-up view as possible. The convince Muslims that the war in Iraq is a war on Islam. That the war in Afganistan is a war on Islam. That Israelis target women and children because they are Muslim. It was Christmas (pardon the poor metaphor) for these guys when the US/UK invaded Iraq. You can't honestly tell me these leaders actually want the US/UK to leave--they are loving this opportunity.

They are able to point to complete F-ups by the US like Abu Ghraib, despite the fact that this form of torture was a walk in the park compared to Saddam torture chambers.

The question is, who is to blame--the occupying forces because they gave the radicals the needed spark, or the radicals who throw gasoline on the spark and really get a blaze going?

Clearly in my mind there is culpability on both sides--although it doesn't look like many of you will admit that.

[Eric C. on 14.08.06 at 13:59]

This meeting of the Mel Gibson fan club is duly called to order. Kerblaaaah! ;)

[Bill Cook on 14.08.06 at 14:01]

No I do not support terrorism nor do I support hypocricy.

Frankly I would rather drive Israel into bankrupcy rather than the sea.

When Hamas was democratically elected why was it not a crime to kidnap several of their members ?

Let us watch as the scenario unfolds and as stated before those who will suffer most will be those with the least power to resist, and regrettably terrorism will not go away until the reasons for it are dealt with in my opinion.

[silencedogood on 14.08.06 at 14:18]

Let us watch as the scenario unfolds and as stated before those who will suffer most will be those with the least power to resist.

Posted by Bill Cook on 14.08.06 at 14:01

This applies to both sides. I'm sure that you would agree that those riding busses in Israel, particularly the children, aren't exactly hard targets.

Sadly terrorism has become a self perpetuating phenomenon. I doubt it would end if all the Jews packed up and went somewhere else. It is more about power hungry individuals implementing asymmetric warfare than religion, “US aggression”, or any of the other recruiting tools being floated.

Osama Bin Laden listed the presence of infidel troops on the Arabian Peninsula in 1991 as a motivating factor for increasing Al Qaeda attacks against the US.

He calls it imperialism when it was a multi-national force that went in under UN mandate to liberate Kuwait after Iraq invaded when he was really just upset that his offer to liberate Kuwait with muhajudeen was rebuffed by the Saudis. Is that not hypocrisy? Is it not hypocrisy to murder in the name of religion? I hear very few, on this blog at least, complaining about these things.

[Njegos on 14.08.06 at 14:20]

Reardon says:

One wears uniforms and says "hey your fight is with me," and the other wears no uniform, shoots rockets at random from hospitals and apartment buildings, and runs away like the cowards they are.

You obviously understand nothing about guerrilla warfare. That is how militarily inferior armies defeat stronger opponents. They use hit and run tactics. That is why you lost in Vietnam. Were all the Viet Cong cowards? Do cowards fight their enemies for years against overwhelming military odds? What do you want, Reardon? For Hezbollah to wear bright colours on the battlefield (preferably orange)? Guerrilla tactics are no comment on the morality of a cause but they do reflect the determination of the fighters. Just like in Iraq. Scary, no?

The real reason you are angry is because your junkyard dog got licked. Finally the Arab world has an army they can proud of. Hezbollah has shamed the perfumed officers of the IDF and their political masters who thought their billions of dollars of deadly US technology would score an easy victory. Wrong. And those corrupted Arab governments of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia can't be too happy either. The little moral leadership they had is finished. Hezbollah has taught the Arab world how to fight.

Ian:

You refuse to respond to my post and instead resort to smears labelling myself and Bill Cook as Nazi sympathisers. So we are anti-Semites because we criticise Israel. God how boring. Please come up with something more original.

Then you pretend that the current fighting is entirely the fault of Hezbollah. Classic de-contextualisation. Ian, are you aware that the Israelis hold hundreds of kidnapped Shiite prisoners? (BTW, have you figured out yet the inspiration for Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram?) Are you aware that prisoner exchanges are commonplace between Israel and Hezbollah? Are you aware that before the latest outbreak of fighting, Israel continued to occupy Lebanese territory (the Shebaa farms)?

You pour as much slime as you want on myself and others who shine the light on Israel's peculiar brand of humanity. We are not going away anytime soon.

Ace:

If you had any decency you would apologise to Bill Cook for your attempt to have him censored. So much for your belief in free speech.

[loki on 14.08.06 at 14:24]

The real problem is that, by its very nature, Islam is an extremist religion that advocates the use of violence to spread itself throughout the world. There are numerous sections in the Qur'an that:

(a) commands Muslims to make war with Jews and Christians;

(b) commands Muslims to spread Islam throughout the world by conquering non-Muslim provinces and forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam under the threat of death;

(c) advocates the murder of non-Muslims.

This is the real problem. When a religion is inherently violent and advocates terrorism as a means of spreading itself throughout the world, what can we expect?

Now, there are many 'moderate' Muslims, but the sad reality is that this individuals do not practise Islam as set out in the Qur'an.

[Njegos on 14.08.06 at 14:28]

He calls it imperialism when it was a multi-national force that went in under UN mandate to liberate Kuwait after Iraq invaded when he was really just upset that his offer to liberate Kuwait with muhajudeen was rebuffed by the Saudis.

Yeah, it's all the result of a big sulk.

[Bill Cook on 14.08.06 at 14:31]

Njegos,

Thanks for that.

At last count Israel is holding 8,500 prisoners most witout charges and I think 20% are children below age of 12.

[Njegos on 14.08.06 at 14:36]

commands Muslims to spread Islam throughout the world by conquering non-Muslim provinces and forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam under the threat of death;

This is not true. Mohammed forbade the forced coversion to Islam. That is why, for instance, the millet system was created under the Ottoman empire. Infidels were definitely second class citizens but were allowed to keep their faith and manage their own affairs to a limited degree as long as it did not affect the rights or power of Muslims.

[Njegos on 14.08.06 at 14:39]

I am not surprised Bill.

[Njegos on 14.08.06 at 14:42]

Reardon writes:

"They are able to point to complete F-ups by the US like Abu Ghraib"

These are not F-ups. They are US policy. Humiliate and de-humanise the enemy. That's what Israel has been doing for decades. It's no co-incidence.

[loki on 14.08.06 at 14:48]

Njegos:

Qur'an 9:73 - "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home - an evil fate".

Qur'an 4:76 - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil - so fight ye against the friends of Satan"

Qur'an 5:51 - "O, you who do believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies, for they are allies of one another. Who from among you takes them as allies will indeed be one of them."

There's hundreds of other quotes where they came from, too.

"You refuse to respond to my post and instead resort to smears labelling myself and Bill Cook as Nazi sympathisers. So we are anti-Semites because we criticise Israel. God how boring. Please come up with something more original."

I have not refused to respond to your original post. I will respond now. I still contend that the action in Afghanistan was and is, justifed. Yes, the country remains in turmoil, however would eradication of the opium fields (and subsequently depriving the people of any significant income) be any better than returning to extreme Islamic law? Yes, innocents have been killed (including Canadian soldiers bombed by Americans). This unfortunately happens in any war. It will continue to happen as long as there are conflicts in the world. Did the Taliban manage to avoid any civilian casualties? Were the people targeted in 9/11 "hard targets"? It goes both ways. I do not suggest that the 'Northern Alliance' warlords that the US chose as "allies" are any better than the Taliban. Frankly, the country would be better off without them as well. Unfortunately, as you indicated, the US has put this country on the back burner while they pursue their misguided action in Iraq. That is the most serious mistake in Afghanistan - a lack of "follow-through" thanks to Bush's obsession with Saddamm. Moreover, regardless of how you spin it - you cannot tell me that the leader of Iran would accept Israel in any form whatsoever. His words are inflammatory and he is a menace to the regions stability. I am also aware of Israel's prisoners and the land in their possession. They also captured land in the 1967 war as well. I personally find this justifable - their neighbours are filled with terrorists who want to drive them into the sea. I would capture as much land around me as possible, hold those who present a threat, and build a wall as well.

Lastly, I do believe 'common sense' as relating to these issues, is a predominently Western approach (not practiced by Bush et al unfortunately). The average Western person like myself likely thinks that it would be sensible for all parties to sit down together over a good meal and talk out their issues. However, I do not think for one moment that any serious dialogue about peace could be undertaken with people who's religious beliefs demand the destruction of those with opposing views. Compromise is required and extremists (of any ilk) cannot fathom this.

I will also agree that calling you an anti-semite is perhaps a tad strong. However, I would like to see what you propose as a solution. We can all discuss the how and why's - but what is your "answer" to the Israel issue? Do you support an independant nation of Israel in this region or elsewhere? Do you advocate their departure (forced or otherwise) from the region? I'm clear on what I want, but from my experience it seems most Arab supporters (with the exception of extremists and Palestinan "refugees") are pretty vague on what they want when pressed.