The reason entitys such as El Al are more effective at stopping terror threats is that they are not afraid to 'profile'.

Simple as that.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...odem/Islam.jpg

Yes but that still doesn't stop palestinian terrorism in israel does it ?

Tell me SteamWake, what happens when islamic terrorists start blowing up cars in american cities, or trains, or put bombs in malls or pubs or hotels or any other kind of target ? What is the US going to do ? Close all the frontiers, and put its citizens in prison so that nobody can have the ability to perpetrate acts of violence ?
People tend to think that terrorism starts and stops at airports and airplanes.
Thats never been the case. You think that terrorism on US soil that doesn't take into account airplanes is somewhat more acceptable ? And if not then why are we not seeing stupid security measures in the streets, in the cinemas, in the pubs, in the train stations etc....

:har::har::har:
Yes and you cannot fight against the LRA unless you confront Christianity:rotfl2:


Rubbish, the reason El-al is more effective is because it does its own heavy security on top of the airports security and whichever governments security is there. It isn't because it is not afraid to profile, it is because they are far more thorough and would rather delay flights and miss slots than cut corners.

It is if you have swallowed global conspiracy about the protocols of the elders of mecca rubbish like Sky has.

The quality and quantity of this attack is woithout example. the act itself is beyond belief, and loss in live is extreme, the economical costs are monumental, and the chnage to the world, to our rights and liberties and habits and procedures already needs thick box to be covered in full. This does not compared with anything the IRA, the ETA, the RAF or the red briages have achieved.



There you are wrong, there are many significant differences. Lets do not even mention operational differences and an organsiation and infrastructure, a network of fund-raising that in case of Al Qaeda excedes everything european terrorism ever was capable of. Let'S focus on that Djihad attracts people no matter their nationality, without having lbks to the region where they strike. Let'S see that djihad is linked to a religious demand and by that is capable to ufnold far more motivaitonal energy than we have seen from terrorism in europe. Let'S see that Al Qaeda is capable not only to threatening the taking over of whole nations, but already has demonstrated that ability to wide degrees in several nations.

and most imporant, neither ETA nor the IRA nor the RAF had eyed the taking over of all the world. Djihad/Islam claims right that to be the ultimate goal: global ruling.

That is a bit more than just some political suckers bombing a taxi in front of an embassy, or a group of gangsters cionsidering themselves to fight for rtegional independence.

The support for ETA, RAF, IRA, always was and still is minor, and regional. Djihad is capable to activate crowds and masses counting by the donzens of millions, and more.

As I said, compared to djihad, european terror organisations of the past 40 years have been children's game. They never were popular with the masses. Djihad is.

In my last post I summarised that we disagree on the nature of european terrorism and Islamic terrorism being two different things, both in quality and quantity. but we agree for the most that both must be tackled by the same means, with good police work, intel, infiltration, counter-terrorism operations, etc etc - what i have listed. I focus on all that, too, like you, and like you I think it is foolish to assume one could beat Islamic terror by military means alone or hightech scanners and satellites. I want HiTech included where needed, but not at the cost of not weighing the costs in freedoms and rights versus the security gains, and not at the cost of giving up human intel capacity, like it was done until some years ago. It was a mistake to give up human resources in intel capacity for hightech solutions exclusively.

You must confront the ideology motivating djihad, that is why I am so angry about this constant appeasing of Islam, and having "good relations" with terror-funding states. You must confront those states supporting it - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, for example. It is counterproductive to just appease Islam, or such nations.

But still, if djihad is waged, what do you want to do about the violence it creates? Sit still and suffer the losses? Hardly. until the disease - Islam - has been "cured", the symptoms of the disease - djihad, Islamic terrorism - must be dealt with. My quarrel is that today many think that dealing with the symptoms only already provides a soluution for the disease, a disease that is helped to spread and grow strong while one is battling it's symptoms. It's shizophrenic.

Is that lifted straight out of "my struggle"?

BTW , can someone remind me what that chant the revolutionary terrorists who apparently were only local in their global ideology had?
Something about an international struggle across the globe with the people of all nations I think. Must have been an islamic thing eh