BA 223 - What the F*ck is going on?

sovtek

Originally posted by Moriarty
What, like America?

Thought that was a given...

ArphaRima

Let me tell you what I think I know of sky marshalls.

In Ireland it will be special branch. The requirements are that they have to be "government trained", and military personnel cannot travel unrestricted into most countries. So that means civilian forces, armed; special branch.

Think about how much training they have had or even will get for firing a firearm in a tin can full of 350 people and 2 terrorists.

Now let me tell you about the arms industry. They have suggested a small, concealable submachine gun as the primary weapon. It will look like a pistol, be small, yet fire on full auto. The ammunition will be "soft". Soft ammunition is banned under the terms of war for all armies. Only full metal jacket is allowed, piercing rounds. This is because of the damage caused to the human body by soft rounds. The same round that shatters on impacting an aircrafts bulkhead enters the human body and then shatters, scattering fragment into about 6 organs at once, as well as blowing a tennis ball sized hole out the victims back.

Last week i read reports of an air marshall being choked by a drunken fat women on an American airline in-flight. She became unruly and he got involved. An armed air marshall got involved in a petty dispute. He was almost overpowered. No need to elaborate for the potential hazard this brings into the cabin, or the possibilities of organised terrorists creating diversions to single out and overpower an air marshall for their own gain.

Victor

Originally posted by fluffer
In Ireland it will be special branch. The requirements are that they have to be "government trained", and military personnel cannot travel unrestricted into most countries. So that means civilian forces, armed; special branch.

Special branch are no use in such a situation as there main job is detection (and beating hippies), not shooting. The ERU and ARW are the most suitable, assuming the ERU doesn't shoot the wrong people. The ARW is the only one that trains for situations aboard aircraft.

Originally posted by fluffer
Now let me tell you about the arms industry. They have suggested a small, concealable submachine gun as the primary weapon. It will look like a pistol, be small, yet fire on full auto. The ammunition will be "soft". Soft ammunition is banned under the terms of war for all armies. Only full metal jacket is allowed, piercing rounds. This is because of the damage caused to the human body by soft rounds. The same round that shatters on impacting an aircrafts bulkhead enters the human body and then shatters, scattering fragment into about 6 organs at once, as well as blowing a tennis ball sized hole out the victims back.

Soft ammunition (nor shotguns) is not banned for law enforcement. The ammunition they are actually proposing is lightweight - not metal and designed for stunning the victim, not killing ('cos in a plane full of people, all your misses will connect with something / someone - this is why CT forces use short range 9mm ammunition).

Originally posted by Occidental
Man,

Judging by the half-baked enforcement of security procedures so far, I wouldn't expect the introduction of sky-marshalls to be any different.

Well if they are well trained and on a plane, I wouldn't risk tackling them , would you?

Congrats to Mister Bush on finding a replacement for Russia, even if it is a virtual one.

Well surely the mad men that want to down planes or set off dirty bombs in the states or Britain have some share in the blame for this, they are not innocent.

The measures regarding emergency provisions currently being discussed in westminister for instance pertain to security in the U.K not Ireland.
What is proposed and implimented there and in the U.S for flight security or security in general is open to democratic scrutiny at the ballot box in those countries, and frankly Non UK or U.S citizens have little say in the matter.
Except maybe in the case of air travel one can decide not to fly there or in general, not to transact business there or visit full stop, unless the measures you disagree with are overturned.

dahamsta

Suprised we didn't hear about this almost identical version of the BA 223 incident in Mexico City with Aeromexico Airlines. Makes you wonder if there were more incidents elsewhere.

adam

Five o'clock shadow? You're a marked man! (view interstitial for "day pass")

In times of terror alert, international travel turns into an endurance marathon -- and a financial train wreck.

By Andrew Leonard

Jan. 6, 2004 | On Sunday, Jan. 4, the check-in counter for Aeromexico Airlines in the Mexico City International Airport opened at 4:30 a.m., fully four and a half hours before a 9 a.m. flight to Los Angeles was scheduled to take off. For even extremely cautious travelers, four-plus hours might seem like adequate time to pick up a boarding pass and get one's bags checked.

But to the people who had missed their flights the day before at that same airport, four and a half hours seemed to be cutting it dangerously close. Over this past weekend, heightened security measures resulting from U.S. Transportation Security Administration alerts about a particular Aeromexico flight led to what may have been the most extreme security measures ever carried out at the Mexico City International Airport. I know, because I was there, and after waiting seven hours in line on Jan. 3, and missing two flights to Los Angeles, I wasn't going to take any chances. I was in line at 3:30 in the morning.

[...]

The proximate cause of the chaos was the cancellation of two Aeromexico flights to Los Angeles (and the turning back of a third, and the fighter-jet escorting, reportedly, of a fourth) earlier in the week. [...]

Occidental

Originally posted by dahamsta
Suprised we didn't hear about this almost identical version of the BA 223 incident in Mexico City with Aeromexico Airlines. Makes you wonder if there were more incidents elsewhere.

adam

Same thing happend Air France in December, when a Paris-Los Angeles flight was cancelled six times. Reportedly it was a mistranslation of some Arabic names which caused all the panic.

Victor

Interesting the way BA and AF are being targeted, not American aircraft. Interesting thats it's mostly European-originated flights are being stopped (with fuels tanks that will be fairly empty by the time they reach the USA).

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2449943?view=Eircomnet

U.S. uncovers Al Qaeda threat to flights
From:Reuters
Saturday, 31st January, 2004
By Doina Chiacu

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence has identified an al Qaeda threat to several U.S.-bound flights, leading to the cancellation of seven flights by British and French airlines to avoid a repeat of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

"We have received some threat reporting regarding specific flights and have passed that information on to our international partners," Department of Homeland Security spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said on Saturday.

A U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the United States had received reports indicating al Qaeda's desire to target those flights.

The cancelled flights were BA 223 from London to Washington on Sunday and Monday, BA 222 in the reverse direction on the same days, and BA 207 from London to Miami on Sunday.

Air France cancelled two Paris-Washington flights.

U.S. security officials alerted the countries and airlines involved, the U.S. official said. It was up to them whether to cancel the flights or step up in-flight security, he said.

"We don't make that decision. The other governments and the other airlines make that decision," the official said.

The latest cancellations came during a jittery period for the global airline industry since December, when similar threats forced the cancellation of the same British Airways flights between London and Washington as well as several Air France flights.


THREAT REPORTING IDENTIFIED TARGETS

The latest intelligence enabled U.S. officials to identify flights potentially at risk, but the official said further details were not available. "It would be pure speculation," he said.

The al Qaeda network led by Osama bin Laden is widely believed to be responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States that killed around 3,000 people.

Three days before Air France cancelled six departing and returning flights from Paris-Los Angeles on December 24 and 25, the U.S. government raised its terror alert to the second-highest level and warned Americans there was a high risk militants might strike U.S. targets around the holidays.

The United States also asked foreign airlines to put armed marshals on some flights and dispatched fighter jets to escort some incoming planes.

The national terror threat level was lowered back to "elevated" from "high" on January 9.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said the U.S. government consistently receives intelligence that al Qaeda is still interested in using aircraft, particularly commercial airplanes, to carry out an attack.

In December 2001, there was a security scare on a flight from Paris when Richard Reid, a British citizen, tried to ignite an explosive device hidden in his shoe during a flight to Miami. He was overpowered and later convicted in the attack attempt.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0131/terror.html

BA cancels three flights to US
January 31, 2004

(16:00) British Airways has cancelled three planned flights from London to cities in the United States for security reasons.

A number of flights from Paris to the United States have also been cancelled.

The move coincides with an unconfirmed report that the United States has intelligence that the al Qaeda terrorist network may be targeting such flights.

British Airways, following security advice from the British government, said it had cancelled three planned flights from London to cities in the United States.

The cancelled flights are two from Heathrow to Washington, due to depart tomorrow and on Monday, and one to Miami, tomorrow.

The Heathrow-Washington flight was cancelled several times a month ago after the US raised its terror alert to high over the Christmas period.

And Air France is cancelling two flights from Paris to Washington, tomorrow and on Monday, also for security reasons.

Akrasia

If i was an islamic terrorist the last plane i would target now is any flight number 223

if the best the US "intelligence" services can do is keep grounding the same flight then the american public might as well stock up on canned goods and live in their basements.

If the CIA really wanted to stop terrorism, tehn they wouldn't announce that every cancelled flight is as a result of a terrorist threat. If their task is really to make Americans feel and be secure, then they would discretely cancel suspect flights, say for instance, pretend that the plane had a mechanical problem.
That would
1. not cause terror among the population (shouldnt that be an aim of the war on terror)
2. The alleged terrorists wouldn't be scared off to live and bomb another day

Of course, the intelligence reports are supposed to have as big an impact as possible because if the poublic are going to support this war on terror they'd better be damn terrified

Geromino

Originally posted by Akrasia
If i was an islamic terrorist the last plane i would target now is any flight number 223

if the best the US "intelligence" services can do is keep grounding the same flight then the american public might as well stock up on canned goods and live in their basements.

If the CIA really wanted to stop terrorism, tehn they wouldn't announce that every cancelled flight is as a result of a terrorist threat. If their task is really to make Americans feel and be secure, then they would discretely cancel suspect flights, say for instance, pretend that the plane had a mechanical problem.
That would
1. not cause terror among the population (shouldnt that be an aim of the war on terror)
2. The alleged terrorists wouldn't be scared off to live and bomb another day

Of course, the intelligence reports are supposed to have as big an impact as possible because if the poublic are going to support this war on terror they'd better be damn terrified

What is being said via newspapers and video media is only a fraction of what the intelligence services actually accomplish. However, your second point brings a catch-22 situation. The problem is no one can stop terrorism until the terrorists stop it themselves. That is how the Good Day accord came into being and the breakthrough with the NI issue. Germany during WWII did not know fully who was and who was not a resistance fighter. Under the Soviet Union, the KGB and GRU services did not know fully who was and who was not loyal completely and had to base their assertions on heresay and inuendo. Finally, it took thirty years before the November 17 terrorist group was finally eliminated as a threat. It is very foolish to think that any agency can completely eliminate any terrorist group in a short time span.

Akrasia

thats what the entire left anti-war movement has been saying since september 11th (11/9)
You cant stop terrorism through violence and you cant safeguard freedom by restricting civil liberties.
There are ulterior motives beneath the "War on terror(ism)" and this is about advancing the neo-liberal agenda. Paving the way for American Multi-nationals to colonise the middle east, to gain a further military platform in the Gulf Region, to support the defence industry who have supported the republicans,..........

You cant advance freedom through indiscriminate war. Violence (including economic warfare) should be the very last option. Instead of weapons inspections the UN should have a Human Rights inspections program that is hugely funded and well supported. The UN human rights inspectors should have a mandate to go into any country where they have reason to believe human rights offences are taking place...)

If america (and Europe) really cared about freedom and peace this is what they would be focusing on. Unfortunately people are well below their list of priorities beneath profits and power

mike65

Interesting the way BA and AF are being targeted, not American aircraft

Well not quite....

It was also announced today that Continental Airlines had cancelled today's 12.15pm (23:15AEDT) Flight 17 from Glasgow, Scotland, to Los Angeles with an intermediate stop in Newark, New Jersey.

Mike.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Akrasia
If the CIA really wanted to stop terrorism, tehn they wouldn't announce that every cancelled flight is as a result of a terrorist threat. If their task is really to make Americans feel and be secure, then they would discretely cancel suspect flights, say for instance, pretend that the plane had a mechanical problem.
<snip>

LOL. How the HELL are they supposed to keep that quiet dealing with two foreign airlines and foreign airline workers and mechanics and airport and airline employees?? Totally impractical solution. Besides, its the same flight over and over again. Obviously that's a one-trick pony.

Anyway, back to the topic, I just read that the stated reason for the cancellations is the threat of bio or chem attacks against the planes in-flight.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/01/flights.canceled/

Akrasia

its pretty simple, you tell the staff and airlines not to say anything.

if they wear their black suits and sunglasses then people will probably do what they say.

BuffyBot

At leasy the pilots are beginning to ask questions (see here)

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Akrasia
its pretty simple, you tell the staff and airlines not to say anything.

if they wear their black suits and sunglasses then people will probably do what they say.

You can't be serious. :rolleyes:

Akrasia

i can sometimes, but i wasnt really being serious there