Monday, December 28, 2009

The shame and humiliation of Londonistan

Cranmer has resisted (for three days) the temptation to comment upon the alleged plot to bomb the Detroit-bound Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam by a man alleged to be Nigerian and who is also alleged to be a co-religionist of Mohammed intent on murdering 278 people.

But the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is worrying on a number of levels:

1) He was already on a UK ‘watch list’.

2) He had already been refused a visa to enter the country following an application to study at a fake college.

3) He was on a US ‘watch list’.

4) Al Qaeda had warned of a terror attack four days before the incident, posting a video online from Yemen saying: 'We are carrying a bomb to hit the enemies of God.'

4) Concerns had been expressed both to Nigerian and US authorities by the man’s own father, who was concerned by his son's extremist behaviour.

It beggars belief that this man was not stopped before he boarded the Amsterdam-Detroit flight on Christmas Day. The plot was thwarted only by luck.

It also beggars belief that we still have a security system in place which inconveniences millions of air passengers but quite clearly does not stop the determined jihadi terrorist.

36 Comments:

Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

When I was a kid, I used to own an air rifle, much to the detriment of the local wild life. Me and a friend would often set out into the wilderness to hunt for rabbits. However, as always when a gun is in the hands of an immature moron, we would blast everything that moved before us and, hence, never get anywhere near anything which resembled a rabbit. (I repent, I do quite sincerely).

Watching the TV coverage of ordinary folk going through airport scanners and high-tech searching devices, and seeing old fat grannies being frisked, reminded me of two prats with air rifles hunting rabbits.

28 December 2009 at 11:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am glad that you were unable to resist a comment Your Grace, it provides us all with a chance to also comment.

We all know that what they are looking for is Muslim terrorists, ie Alcae heeda and the Taliban (namely). So why are they putting everybody through hell?

Maybe if Muslims are inconvenienced a bit more than the rest of us, then we might see a change in behaviour. We are not being terrorised by Anabaptist blood smugglers, or Welsh Presbyterian drug and child traffickers, it is Muslim people who are the risk. Because of Muslim people we are all going through hell. So they are terrorising us and making our lives a misery whether we like it or not, whether we use hight-tech scanners or not. So why not get specific and return the favour so to speak. Turn the worm, put the ball back in their court?

"Hello madam/sir, because you are a Muslim you are a threat because of obvious reasons."

28 December 2009 at 11:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Much talk, now, of profiling being used. It is perhaps entirely predictable that I should have heard a reporter state that this would be "controversial" because Muslims would feel targeted. You couldn't make etc.

Jay

28 December 2009 at 11:34  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

I am convinced that the Nigerian, or whatever the guy in fact is, terrorist attack yesterday due to a so called leak in the Dutch airport controls is a total FAKE.

Set up by the ELITE-POWERS who want to justify licensing themselves to bring extra dictatorial control over the sheeples, by robbing the travellers of even more freedom, peace, joy of traveling, and hughe amounts of extra money to pay for the extra personal and anti-'terrorist' (read anti-peoples) measurements.

28 December 2009 at 11:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Strangely enough, when they look for IRA terrorists its usually Irish people who they have in mind. How weird?

28 December 2009 at 11:45  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I understand that he did not check-in any baggage which only compounds the felony. Does anybody ever join up the dots?

28 December 2009 at 11:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Honolulu Barry can hang him on next year's Holiday Tree.

28 December 2009 at 11:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The BBC is reporting that Muslims fear a backlash from next week's bombing.

28 December 2009 at 12:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The BBC is reporting that Muslims fear a backlash from next week's bombing."

Behead all those who do not comply with terrorists.

Charley Brown Converts to Islam

28 December 2009 at 13:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have some contacts with people in the real security industry. (By that I do not mean the bag searchers or the bag search management). They would say that airport security will probably prevent the "chancer" who wants to make a name for himself, but will not deter a serious well-planned terrorist attack.

Thankfully this latest attempt was not well-planned or well executed, although an incendiary device, of dubious effectiveness, was taken through security.

The biggest bonus we currently have is that the terrorists do not have a country in which they can feel totally secure. Afghanistan used to be the terrorist hideout of choice, but no more; at least as long as NATO are there.

A state would be able to provide equipment and proper explosives, such as Semtex or C4, which Al Quaida seem unable to acquire for now. Getting C4 through security,
unless "sniffers" are used, is a doddle. The boys in Hereford will know that and I am sure the terrorists do as well.

There is a further fundamental flaw in the security strategy and it is one which the Europeans in particular choose not to address. When Gordon Brown says he will do whatever is necessary to protect passengers he is lying. He will not apply to passengers the same strategy that is used to defend him, namely 'point defence'.

If you identify a potential target, you build your defences from the point at which the attack is to take place. In the case of a passenger aircraft, you would have a strategy to defend the aircraft from attack after it is airborne. In Gordon Brown's case you surround him with armed guards at any time he is likely to be in a public area.

You would then put a defensive ring around the target to reduce the options and chances of an attacker.


Therefore the politicians restrict security to the outer ring leaving crew and passengers defenceless once they are on the aircraft. Indeed, it appears that the current strategy relies on unarmed citizens to defend the aircraft once the terrorist has revealed himself.

Members of the crew should be armed. It is already happening in America, El Al crew have been armed for years and your Grace's readers would be surprised at the number of countries who allow their crew to be armed. In most of sub-Saharan Africa passengers are allowed to take their guns on to the aircraft on condition they are handed to the cockpit crew before take off. I have personally witnessed this during a 7 month work engagement on that Continent.

In a civilised country, the citizens would be trusted to carry weapons for self-defense, as in many US states. The British are obviously considered by their politicians to be uncivilised.

Just one other point, missed by the media. The most dangerous circumstance a crew can confront within the pressurised hull of an aircraft is fire. The media seem to be focussing on the notion that the terrorist on the Delta flight wanted to set of an explosive. A small charge carried on a person, unless it was C4, would be unlikely to bring an aircraft down. However, a fire would, and quickly. The Swissair flight that suffered an electrical fire off the coast of Newfoundland crashed 15 minutes after the fire started. It is my guess that the terrorist wanted to set fire to the plane.

Forgive me for remaining anonymous, but prudence dictates that I do so.

28 December 2009 at 13:44  
Anonymous Fly Spray said...

Anonymous secret agent above:

I don't know who your contacts are but you can tell them something for me.

Alan Johnson was boasting that this terrorist was on the watch list, but the only reason he was on this list is because he was refused a visa because he applied to a bogus college. The thing is, if they had refused him the first time, the chances are that he would not have come to Londonistan, the terror capitol of Europe, in order to get radicalised by the swarms of training mosques where they breed like flies.

28 December 2009 at 13:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am tall, blond and pretty obviously an Englishman.

A while back I was going through security at Stansted, in a business suit and was frisked, had my belt and shoes removed and my briefcase searched.

Meanwhile two muslim women ahead of me, in full burqua's, were waved through.

It said it all to me.

The West is doomed. It doesn't even have the will to defend itself for fear of "offending" the enemy.

28 December 2009 at 14:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the reporting of this incident I've also heard it said that passengers now have to remain in their seats for the last hour of the flight - why?

The point made by anon 13.44 appears to be getting addressed by the suggestion of the introduction of air marshals. Are we getting to the stage where passengers will have to sit rigidly throughout the flight lest they be pounced on as suspects?

Jay

28 December 2009 at 14:11  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

The Telegraph this morning reports a suicide bomber stuffing an explosive up his rectum. How can security checks detect that, unless by a full body Xray?

Will we all be given personal radiation monitors and allowed a dose up to a certain level, thus limiting the number of aircraft flights allowed per lifetime? The greens would really approve of that!

An unholy alliance between Al Qaeda and Al Gore?

28 December 2009 at 14:21  
Anonymous Pat said...

The authorities have an obsession with not targeting Muslims. The only justification I can think of for this is that they don't want to antagonise the Saudis- every other Muslim state is pretty openly anti-western already. Since every airplane hi-jacking I can remember was carried out by Muslims then the consequence of upsetting the Saudis must be viewed as really terrible- God knows why, they need a market for their oil as much as we need the stuff.
I fully accept that the majority of Muslims go to the Mosque, listen to a firebrand preacher, and then get on with ordinary peaceful lives- as do the majority of any religion basically ignore the preacher. but a few take notice, and those few are dangerous. As long as ordinary Muslims can go along with the preaching without suffering any consequences they will do so- they are normal human beings after all. If the Authorities targeted Muslims for security checks then these people might reconsider which preacher they patronise. Of course one hopes that people more knowledgeable that me could refine the targeting so that only a subset of Muslims were actually targeted.

28 December 2009 at 14:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Londonistan - such comments should be beneath your Grace.

Aping US shock jokkeys is hardly the level of debate I'd expect from this site.

28 December 2009 at 14:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous

The terrorist was carrying a main charge of 80 grams of PETN, but not a standard detonator.

Monty

28 December 2009 at 15:02  
Blogger JPT said...

Your last paragraph makes a very good point indeed.

28 December 2009 at 15:10  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Let's put this problem squarely at the feet of the greatest offender: The Federal Government of The United States of America.

This entity will not do the minimal things necessary to safeguard air travel, such as pay ***!!!*** ATTENTION when a most credible source, such as the ***!!!*** FATHER of the terrorist puts them on notice that his own son is a danger to all around him!

My apologies for being so vociferous, but this really hits close to home. I have family, friends, and business relationships in the UK, as so many Americans do. Our normal lives involve putting family and friends on airplanes to points in Europe (and back again!).

When my dear bride heard of the attack, she said, 'That's the same route we flew last summer!' I can assure you, security at Detroit airport was shockingly lax, with the 'security agents' not looking at the passengers, not looking at the bags, and debating about who would have the next break from work. Amsterdam was not much better, by the way.

Until we develop the will to deliberately screen likely perpetrators--e.g. Muslims with dodgy travel records and passports--we are TARGETS! There is a good reason that we keep seeing ordinary people commenting to the effect of 'I feel safe on a plane full of fervent Methodists or Baptists'. Common sense must prevail, before the innocent perish.

I fear this administration will be worse than the last, extending its blindered policy for fear of offending some follower of Islam somewhere. What will they say to one of us as we bury family members or friends because of their refusal to carry out their duties?

This weekend, three close family friends must travel home from the UK. I pray for their safety, for their protection from the incompetence and indifference of their own Federal Government.

28 December 2009 at 16:06  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

It seems that in this country, someone only needs to allege that you were seen to smack your child and report this to the authorities and you are on a banned list as far as working with children is concerned for life. Yet, with terrorists, it seems that even substantiated allegations are often merely graded "low risk".
Perhaps we should take up a variant of the mantra used by the child protection authorities, "If just one child can be saved ......."
The British attitude to searching individuals was summed up some months ago in a Matt cartoon in the Daily Telegraph (which I forgot to keep). Essentially, a housewife is searching her husband as he comes into the house and is saying "I keep finding dead birds in the house, and it unfair to only search the cat". Yes, it summed up the situation perfectly.

28 December 2009 at 17:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

its only gonna get worse, unsecured borders and muslims pouring in with or without checks, we hae no idea who is in our country.

28 December 2009 at 17:42  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...

His parents appear to be decent people for whom we ought to record respect and offer prayer.

28 December 2009 at 18:34  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Sewell,

His Grace agrees. Bless you.

28 December 2009 at 18:52  
Blogger Bryan said...

Do you not know?

Airline security is never intended to catch everyone who would do harm, but rather to provide a sense of security to the common traveler.

It is not surprising that a reasonably intelligent person committed to doing harm, and willing to die in order to achieve his goals, is able to attempt to kill hundreds of people on an airplane.

The only surprise is the seemingly few attempts.

Security, no matter how tight, will always fail in the face of a determined enemy. The enemy needs only for his plan to succeed once, while security must function at an impossible 100% success rate forever.

Indeed, the terrorists have actually won each time security is tightened, each time liberty and freedom of movement is reduced.

This latest attack may have failed to kill somewhat less than 300 souls, but it has successfully reduced the freedoms of 10's or even 100's of millions of souls in the name of false "security".

28 December 2009 at 19:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Londonistan - such comments should be beneath your Grace.

Aping US shock jokkeys is hardly the level of debate I'd expect from this site.

28 December 2009 14:59

The term Londonistan was first used by the French Security service back in the 90's

half

28 December 2009 at 21:26  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Personally, I scarcely understand why people still travel by air. I used to love it, but everything about it has become so horrible that I'm glad my health presently prevents me.

I should add that I'm white, British, and of the granny variety. My experiences with 'British' airport security in recent years have been disgusting.

Airside at Gatwick I have been treated like a criminal by some german guard: until he and his female Moslem assistants reluctantly admitted that the pedicure kit and mouthwash (in my checked luggage) were what I said they were.

Another time: to fulfill my mother's wishes, I returned her ashes to her beloved England for burial beside her beloved husband. Well. What the silly little cow at security did with that! Until she opened the box - and was horrified to find that I'd told the truth.

Of course, she reacted in support of her Moslem friend - the female in security who'd just performed an excessive ... therefore lesbianic ... body search on me. I had turned and complained loudly to everyone in earshot: "This is disgusting; it's outrageous and unprofessional. This should be done electronically, not manually."

These two stories also highlight a problem. Our 'British' airports (and airlines) are largely staffed by Moslems. Brilliant lesson on how to empower the enemy and defeat the British on their own territory!!

28 December 2009 at 21:59  
Anonymous Hereward said...

"This weekend, three close family friends must travel home from the UK. I pray for their safety, for their protection from the incompetence and indifference of their own Federal Government."

I too have a dear friend in Detriot, who is due to return to England soon. I join my prayers with yours. And Mr Sewell, I echo his Gracw.

28 December 2009 at 22:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monty

I take back what I said about the incendiary device. I was making an assumption about the substance involved. The PETN is a serious explosive and 80 gms would have done the trick, particularly at high altitude.

28 December 2009 at 23:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems tragic and awful for the public and those serving the public that while there are many inncocent people on lists who should not be, who should be removed and their lives free of the burden which accompanies being falsely under suspicion, that there are others who are guilty who slip through.
I assume that the larger the haystack, the harder it is to both differentiate and monitor and stop the real criminals, terrorist or not. I assume also that those trying to fight crime are (with the exception of the bad apples which can occur in any societal group) struggling to cope with the threats of crime and also the morass of info, misinfo and disinfo.
I am thankful no-one was killed and hope and pray that those traumatised or injured will heal.
I also hope and pray that obvious innocents will be removed from lists and that any black-or-white-thinking or emotionally immature or caulturally untrained indiviuals will get appropriate additional training if that is an issue so that fewer innocents are mis-labelled or mistreated.

We ordinary people might not be aware that if we are not careful what we say about ourselves or others, things sometimes get misinterpreted or aumented by others, and that what others say or even lie about us also can lead to problems. There are some guilty persons who will smear or slander innocent people for motives of hatred, filthy lucre, extra-judicial vengeance against people for things they are alleged to have done(including against those innocent of the allegations gossipped about or rumoured), and some who like to fill targets, get promoted, misunderstand cultural nuances or even are sadistic and enjoy ruining others' lives for fun or practice. Some people do horrible things to people if they think they are guilty of something.
Some things should not be done to anyone. Some other things are only appropriate for the guilty and not for the innocent.

I hope that things will improve and that real wrong-doing -regardless of source - will be stopped, that there will be less hatred from those who hate, regardless of the source, and that further plots will be stopped. I also hope that no suspects or accused will be mistreated in a criminal or pre-meditated way, even if they are guilty, and that there will be due process.

I also hope and pray that those who are innocent of wrong-doing - whoever they are, members of the public or those serving the public, will be vindicated and not mistreated.

29 December 2009 at 02:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from anon@02:13 I needed to add I am not any of the anonymous or anonymouses who added any earlier comments to this blog article even if the style is similar.

29 December 2009 at 02:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from ann@02:13
May I also add that I have reported generic (nothing to do with individuals) financial and other safety security gaps in the past and got flack for it in the long-run, even where I have been thanked at the time. The only reason I personally have noticed things is because I have had some bad personl life experiences and once you have had those you tend to notice some security gaps or lapses, even if you have never been in security or any other pertinent jobs. Suffering brings an education all of its own. I also want to add that on one occasion of reporting, before 9/11 I was told that such a problem would not be corrected until something big happened! This was in a Western democracy. I am sure I am not the only one who has reported the obvious and been fobbed off or who, in other cases, has suffered for reporting a generic security gap. And it also begs the question, if an ordinary person notices such things, where are the experts, and why are some of them not being listened to? Why is there so much Big Brother type stuff and yet some obvious checks and blances and security procedures are not done? I am not an expert but sometimes it seems that money, politics and other agendas are at play, both goodand bad in motive and/or result. I also want to add that I think that we can all react as individuals and groups to crimes by a member of an identifiable ethnic or other group in fear and can become over-simplistic or racist, and as Christians esepcially we need to fight that prayerfully for our Lord's sake and for the Gospel's sake (he is fair and merciful, also He will save any who come to Him for salavation).
I assume some Muslims or others might not go to authorities about someone they have suspect is a criminal or vulnerable to becoming one if they do not have a sufficient level of trust that the authorities will appropriately investigate and clear an innocent, treat someone charged appropriately and with due process, that all parts of the process will be fair and merciful and not overly politicised, and that they themsleves will be protected - is there any privacy these days? I also assume it must be difficult for all in society. People mess up and make mistakes especially under pressure, but that is no excuse for some experts and some in government, business and society including charities and religious organisations not thinking things through or some encouraging genuine hatred, racism, thuggery or simple-minded solutions or analysis (though it is normal for humans to react in anger or fear and often initially unfairly to horrible crimes, and no-one is perfect, but that is no excuse for pre-meditated long-term wrong regardless of source of the wrong). There have also, according to newsapers, sometimes been false flags, cover-ups and other dirty tricks throughout history during some wars including some terrorist campaigns and some disputes among or by the powerful or wealthy ie abuses of power.
I hope and pray that things will improve, that plots will be foiled and thwarted but also that we will not live in anarchy or totalitarianism of any kind.

29 December 2009 at 03:13  
Blogger Ayrdale said...

We need some civilised, civil disobedience from airline travellers faced with this draconian nonsense.

Rolling chants...

"We are not bombers, we are not bombers, we are not bombers, we are white.

We are not bombers, we are not bombers, we are not Islam converts, we are not Islam converts, we are not Islam converts, and we're p***ed off, we are not bombers" etc, etc...

29 December 2009 at 07:12  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Allah moves in mysterious ways. Apparently our little terrorist wannabe, by secreting the explosives behind his testicles, managed to roast his chestnuts when his bomb failed to detonate correctly thus (hopefully) removing his potential contribution to the fundamentalist gene puddle...

29 December 2009 at 08:34  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Your Grace - regarding the lack of baggage, this does surprise me, since I needed to take a flight within the USA at short notice last year, and had no baggage. The computer instantly selected me for "further attention" and a full body search and full search of hand baggage.

Also, the computer didn't like me because I'd bought a one way ticket.

So they do have the capability to do it.

Having said that, it's still all window dressing, as various other communicants have pointed out. What's to stop the determined terrorist (a) buying a return ticket with every intention of not using the return half and (b) checking in some bricks, just for the ride, and with the hopes that, with a little luck, they might fall on some kuff and kill a couple of them

Happy Christmas, everyone (whoops...how un-pc that was. Pretend I said, "seasonal greetings and a happy new year"

30 December 2009 at 18:26  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Like I said: The so called underware terrorist attack is a total set up by the Elite/ authorities! Listen to this interview with a lawyer who was on board.

Because Cranmer hates me putting up direct links: Go to youtube and look for the 3 parts of the interview (lasting some 30 minutes together), titled Bombshell Eyewitness Revelations: Confirmed FBI Cover-Up Of Flight 253 Attack

We live in a bad world ruled by lying devils who think they can get away with what they are doing, because the people have no clue, and refuse to believe the facts, but gobble up their lies by the media including the plates and utensils, and even the table!

It's a set up by the ruling devils/ elites to take more dictatorial control, rob us of more freedoms, money, social life, prosperity, health, even of life itself. And most people just let them unopposed.

30 December 2009 at 20:52  
Anonymous Tychy said...

aw he looks a nice kid. just let him off.

1 January 2010 at 14:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older