The backlash against airport security and the latest terror attempt

Posted By: admin

Published to Public Criticism on Nov 16, 2010

From recent comments made by the chairman of BA, the CEO of RyanAir and the security manager of Schiphol airport even those in charge of implementing and handling airport security are starting to question the need for particular measures. With comments made on the inconvenience caused by and even the effectiveness of particular security measures to criticisms from the American Pilots Association it appears that there's a backlash in certain quarters.

In April 2010 a letter was sent to President Obama’s Science & Technology advisor John P. Holdren by scientists from the University of California regarding concerns over the use of backscatter x-ray radiation. Some mainstream media outlets have reported concerns from scientists over the use of airport body scanning devices and the potential for increased skin cancer risks. EPIC have filed a lawsuit over the introduction and use of body scanning devices in US airports. Protest groups and websites have sprung up on the internet with regards to this latest airport security measure. Security experts have questioned and even derided their effectiveness, demonstrating their inability to detect liquids and powders that could be used in an attempt to blow up an airplane.

No evidence has been produced to date of extensive clinical trials and studies into the safety and potential risks of backscatter and millimetre wave scanning devices. Incidents of radiation overdoses and cellular damage from mis-calibrated medical devices have been widely reported. Yet with all this pilots, airport staff and passengers are expected to not question and simply acquiesce to what is, essentially, a public science experiment?

Keep ‘em scared

Of course just as the evidence and voices are growing louder, seemingly on cue, another failed terror attack involving airplanes is once again thwarted and widely reported in the media. The timing quite convenient in relation to both growing questions about excessive airport security measures and the upcoming American mid-term elections. The threat of terrorism always helps to smother dissenting voices and divert the attention of the populace away from domestic issues such as rising unemployment, increasing foreclosures and a growing disenchantment with the political leadership of the country. That, and the latest incident helps to focus attention on Yemen with the media reporting the country as being a hub for Al-Qaeda and a hotbed of extremism. Yemen being the same country that we were told the so-called underwear bomber AbdulMutallab traveled from in his alleged attempt to blow up flight 253 on Christmas Day 2009.

And round and round we go, the same mantra of security and the need to stop the terrorists are trotted out without any counter balancing perspectives. We end up right back where we started with each subsequent ‘terrorist’ attempt. Yet for all the arguments for enhanced protective measures and tighter security checks would ‘terrorists’ be so stupid to attempt the same trick again? Whether it’s toner cartridges allegedly filled with PETN, ‘shoe bombers’ or attempts to detonate explosives concealed in underwear none of the security measures brought in to combat such attacks have thwarted new and subsequent plots. As the head of security for Schiphol airport, Marijn Ornstein, has stated, "If you look at all the recent terrorist incidents, the bombs were detected because of human intelligence not because of screening ... If even a fraction of what is spent on screening was invested in the intelligence services we would take a real step toward making air travel safer and more pleasant."

Yet in relation to airport security the use of technology is a key visual in persuading the general public to accept further measures. Images of scanned bodies are shown (strange given the insistence by media commentators and Government representatives that scanned images aren’t stored) with concealed weapons on their body, in a crude attempt to position the viewer into accepting just how effective these devices are. To even think that someone would try smuggling a gun on their person through airport security is laughable in and of itself but reason always takes second place to fear based reporting.

But let’s not forget the reported motivations for the introduction of these body scanning devices – the failed attempt of AbdulMutallab to detonate a bomb on the Christmas Day flight 253 to Detroit. A scenario which is blatantly absurd upon closer inspection:

  • AbdulMutallab, who WAS on a terror watch list was NOT placed on a no-fly list to the US despite being known to intelligence agencies in both the US and UK as having connections with jihadists around the world
  • AbdulMutallab was reported, by his father, to the CIA officer at the US embassy in Nigeria as being radicalised
  • AbdulMutallab’s father has been reported as having connections to both CIA and Mossad through his position as former chairman of the First Bank of Nigeria and in his capacity as of DICON (Nigeria's defense industry)
  • Despite being on a terror watch list AbdulMutallab was NOT denied a US visa
  • AbdulMutallab had no passport and did not go through passport control at Schiphol airport
  • AbdulMutallab was escorted through Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport by an unnamed man of Indian appearance claiming that AbdulMutallab was a Sudanese refugee
  • Schiphol airport security is run by ICTS, an Israeli firm that supplied security to Charles De Gaulle airport (where the alleged shoe bomber Richard Reid departed from) and Boston Logan airport (where the alleged 911 hijackers departed from) and the London Underground (during the 7/7 bombings)
  • Schiphol airport has been using body scanning devices since May 2007 and yet NO security measures were implemented throughout AbdulMutallab's stay in Schiphol airport

It's safe to assume from the above that the inconsistencies in the official account, and some that weren’t reported in the mainstream media (particularly the alleged connections between AbdulMutallab’s father and Western Intelligence agencies), should lead us to suspect the involvement of intelligence agencies in the underwear bomber plot and other such similar scenarios.

False flag terror attacks have long been a tool of governments around the world, from the Reichstag fire to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, to justify measures such as the invasion of foreign countries and the erosion of civil liberties. The modern day bogeyman Al-Qaeda is reported to be nothing more than the CIA database list of Mujahideen fighters who fought the soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980’s. These same fighters were also reported to have been trained by the SAS in camps in both Afghanistan and Scotland. The links between the CIA and Al-Qaeda have been widely established from a number of sources as well as the links between Osama bin laden and the Bush family.

Smoke and mirrors anyone?

For those who might doubt the above, and please research the evidence presented here, you may wish to read the following quote from former British Foreign secretary Robin Cook, "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80’s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians".

Similarly, a quote attributed to former French artillery and intelligence officer Pierre-Henri Brunel states, "The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money."

But don’t let the truth get in the way of a good scapegoat, now reports are coming in that Manchester airport is conducting a trial of iris scanners to help improve security. Full body scanners were only ever the beginning.

Sources

Tags:

blog comments powered by Disqus