Moolies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7833 times:
I have just turned the tv on to SKY NEWS. They had a caption at the bottom of the page that al-qaeda has warned of more attacks on airlines. I havnt seen any more details and will post them when I see them.
SupraZachAir From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Feb 2004, 634 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7575 times:
Anyone else almost feel safer when Al Qaeda goes out of their way to WARN US what they are going to do? It just seems like they're waving the wand before they pull their rabbit out of the hat. Just my $.02.
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4390 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7463 times:
Of course al-qaeda would love to attack commercial aviation again. This is not news.
Let's think about this for a second.
(1) A 9/11-type attack is probably going to be much harder to pull off. Credit better security measures, cockpit door modifications, higher surveillance, and as said earlier in this thread, lack of surprise. I'm not going to be stupid enough to say that "it could never happen again" but it's not as likely to occur, in my opinion.
(2) Having someone on the "inside". It is conceivable that a rogue pilot or two might have strong enough ties to al-qaeda and decide to crash his aircraft or hit a target. This is especially troublesome when it comes to foreign airlines as it is very difficult to ascertain who is capable of doing what. And now, of course, those same pilots are protected by stronger cockpit doors, making the chance of thwarting the terrorism from inside the aircraft that much less.
(3) Sabotage. Again, someone on the inside could help in planting a bomb or other device. Scary but we have to hope that those background checks work!
(4) Surface to air missile. To me, this is still one of the most likely scenarios. I am presuming that al-qaeda has launchers and weapons in the US already but who knows for sure. If they do, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that they could blow up a plane on landing or takeoff and they don't even have to be near the airport. Very scary.
(5) Traditional car/truck bomb. These are easy, cheap, and usually cause the most damage and carnage. This is what al-qaeda loves: high body count. Someone could drive a truck up to the front of an airline terminal, for example, and blow it up. Think about how many people are inside of a typical bustling terminal. Very scary, and of course this doesn't have to be at an airport. It could be at a sporting event, a train station, a concert hall, etc.
The hardest part of this whole thing is trying to stay one step ahead. What can be done to prevent another disaster? I don't know but I have to have to faith that the government (and all gov'ts worldwide) are doing everything possible to end terrorism. But I also know the reality - they are going to get through one day and something will happen. The Madrid train bombs were proof that al-qaeda is alive and well and can strike quickly and with devasting results. With all of this doom and gloom, what can we do but continue with our lives? I'm certainly not going to become a truck driver in Baghdad or anything, but I'm going to continue with my 'normal' life as much as possible. I will continue to take buses, trains, airplanes, and attend sporting events because my thinking is "if they get me, they get me". All of these warnings are great at getting the media hyped up but really doesn't accomplish much.
IAHAAPlatinum From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7343 times:
Well said, Richierich! We learned from 9.11, and we'll learn when it happens again, which I strongly believe it will. I flew three days after flights were allowed following 9.11 (on mostly empty aircraft), and was questioned by many people about being scared. I said it then, and I'll say it now....I'm not going to allow an organization to like Al-Quaeda to take away my freedom, simply by instilling fear.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12909 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7281 times:
I think there's no doubt they will try to attack aircraft again, although it's strange that they mentioned American airlines. Maybe I'm making a mistake, but I thought they were just referring to Saudi Arabia, which is served by no US carriers. British Airways, Swiss, KLM and Lufthansa are among the European carriers which fly there.
I think this is an effort to make people feel more uncomfortable, but it's primarily part of an effort to destabilise the Saudi regime. They know the oil business is heavily dependant on westerners and if they can frighten them out (which they are trying to do), that hits the Saudi economy hard. Unfortunately, the sheer corruption, hypocrisy and profligacy of the Saudi royal family is a drain on Saudi resources and the economy has been doing very badly; the resultant high unemployment is a magnet for extremism, in much the same way as the economic climate of 1920s and '30s Germany was a healthy recruitment driver for Nazism. I don't want to cause offence with so stark a comparison, but the Saudi regime is heading for a fall and it's as well to be ready. I don't think Al Qaeda will feature in the new government, but we won't like it anyway, that's for sure.
As a previous poster said, if Al Qaeda wants to hit, it won't send messages to the media about it beforehand.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3252 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7250 times:
Well I think Qantas is at risk.
The reason is, this year is an election year in Australia. After the terrorists saw how setting a bomb off in Spain rewards right before elections, I think
they are going to try it again. Plant fear into the minds of people.
You know a really effective way would be to plant a bomb on a QF flight into london and explode it over central london.... that way you'd get both the Australian Government and the British Government in one hit. I thin they should both have elections around the same time too if i remember correctly.
Of course, i'd say other non-aviation methods would be favoured this time around, but not having a stable aviation system (or at least confidence in it buy the travelling public) serverly damages western economies. That is the goal afterall.
Of course, it may shock some of you, but I wouldn't rule out an Air France plane being taken down. Their have been serveral attempts to set of bombs in the Paris metro now, that the international intellegence community has thwarted. Perhaps if the US gov shut their mouths and let a few bombs go off in paris, they'd be stronger supporters?
In any case, they (the french) aren't safe either as there are huge arabic communities that live in seggregated conditions in paris and destest the french. So, I think it is safe to Say Air France may be a target just as much as BA/QF or AA.
UALongHaul From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7222 times:
Al Qaeda has not pulled off any airline attack since 9/11.
I for one feel safer when they anounce things. They act like little school kids "look at me now i have scissors and i am going to run with them now, pay attention to me world!"
We have and will continue to make air travel more secure. I feel confident that Al Qaeda or any other bag of nutcases who wrongfuly hide behind religion to make others suffer will continue to become weaker.
We have made substantial progress in better protecting ourselves. While we should remain alert, our lives should not and will not change because of terrorism.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2691 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7159 times:
If you are going to attack the airlines, the stupidest thing you can do is warn them of it
Al Qaeda has possibly put a dent in their plans just by doing this. Also, its clearly evident they think they can get away with the same thing twice. You would think they could be a bit more creative. They are assisting their own suicide by warning people of their attacks..as obviously people will be more on their guard.
Petazulu From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6753 times:
As a very frequent traveller, I can tell you that I see more and more rent-a-cops, less TSA, no National Guardsmen. Overall, screenings are more lax and screeners seem mon dimensional. If it isn't a laptop or a pair of sneakers- they don't even look at it! Drives me crazy! We were getting lazy again and are overdue for a reality check.
You are right- one successful missile launch at a plane on US ground would destroy the airline industry. Ugh. Talk about a shaky investment proposition...
Take the racial politics out of this forum please!
Psa53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3117 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6564 times:
I can't understand why the media doesn't
give 24/7 coverage on condemning terrorist
acts of killing, like the stand it takes on gays,
and in my opinion, holds very little political merit.I guess
there's no sex in the issue.Unreal!
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13470 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6486 times:
In large part, to me these 'warnings' are as others suggest, a form of harassment of the west and the USA, to make us spend more money on higher alerts, etc. But let us not forget that there has been ground to air missle attacks or attempts already in recent years like the Israeli charter plane in Africa a few years ago and several attempts upon US Military aircraft in Saudia Arabia. This could happen near any airport, in the world. We also cannot forget that there could be attempts to use aircraft to wreak destruction, such as sneaking on bombs, etc.. Attacks by car/truck bombs of airport faclities is still possible and not much is being done to reduce that risk.
These Al-Qaeda types are a sub-cult of death who happen to be believers in some pervese interptation of the Islamic faith. There goal is to take over the world, especially all the oil related weath of the Islamic world for themselves and their followers. To me they are as perverse as the Nazis were, living in their obscene fantasay world, their hate of Jews and other 'non-believers' and modernity.
StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6317 times:
I think BA and Qantas have a lot to worry about, besides the US carriers. AF and LH I don't think are high priority targets, given that France and Germany opposed the war in Iraq and don't have troops there (though they are in Afghanistan helping with the war on teror).
Australia holds elections for PM before ours in November, and like Spain, it's a conservative PM that supports Bush vs. a liberal that not only hates the war, but Bush as well.
Similar for Britain, though their elections aren't until '05 sometime. Given BA's operations in the middle east, I wouldn't be surprised to see them cancel flights in droves.
I'm flying out of IAD on a UA 747 headed for Frankfurt on July 3rd. A threat like this is a bit unnerving, given the close proximity to a US holiday and outside the nation's capital. But, all this threat talk by these cowards have been hollow anyhow, so I'll be damned if it's going to stop me.
Richierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4390 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (11 years 1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5967 times:
Good for you, Steven.
I admit that I rearranged some vacation plans to avoid being in Vegas on 7/4 - I am flying out on 7/1 - but not entirely because of al-qaeda. It also works better from a work perspective. The terror threat was in my mind a little, however, which is exactly how terrorism works. Given a choice between flying on 7/4 or on a different day, I'd probably choose a different day, even though I know nothing will happen on that day.
I do agree with everybody that it is dumb and ignorant to blame all Muslims for terrorism and 9/11. This is exactly what al-qaeda wants, to make this a religious war, sort of like a crusade. Nothing pisses them off more as when an Islamic country works closely with Western countries to weed out the bad seeds. From their perspective, Western countries, especially the USA, are only interested in money and oil. To an extent this is probably true but that is overly simplistic. I think a lot of diplomacy has to go into getting away from an "us" versus "them" mentality because this is what fuels the extremist point of view.
Back to the subject - I will briefly bring my religion into it by saying - that I hope and pray to God that terrorism ends soon for all of mankind's sake. "Can't we all just get along?" I fear that answer to this question is increasingly becoming "no".