a new question of the electronics travel ban, trying to figure alternatives

[Jorgen Udvang]

Definition of Obtuse

not able to think clearly or to understand what is obvious or simple



So, Russian lives don't matter. The lives from Egypt don't matter. Passengers flying over Ethiopia don't matter. Maylasia flight 370 doesn't count because Americans were not the target. UTA flight 772 enroute to Paris over the Sahara doesn't count. Philippines airlines, the 224 people flying from Egypt to St. Petersburg, Russia in 2015 don't count either. The evolution of the technique of Islamic terrorism in their quest to do harm to countless innocent civilians should be of no concern to you a long as ignorance feeds the political correctness of today's modern society. A shining, glittering example that's simply breath taking! It must be Russian collusion and not the content of exposed emails or the sharing of intel that has puts us at the greatest risk. Yeah, it must be that.

Yes, all those lives count. The question is if these rules would have prevented the incidents.

- MH370, surely not. The plane was hi-jacket, not bombed, and there were enough Americans on-board to make them possible targets.
- UTA 772 was a bomb in the cargo hold. "Secret Chadian Resistance" claimed responsibility. The French were probably the target. France supported Hissène Habré, the president in Chad at the time. Those terrorists represented his armed opposition, if they were indeed behind it. Libya has mostly been blamed for the incident, due to a conflict between that country and Chad.
- Metrojet 9268. It was never established if the bomb was in the passenger cabin or cargo hold. Russians were obviously the targets. Russia had just started intensifying their fight against terrorism in Syria at the time.

What has been established is that terrorists who want to bring down a plane mostly succeed in doing so. What has also been established is that terrorists who don't have the resources to bring down an airplane, mostly find other means of killing people. like walking into a concert with a bomb or driving into large crowds with trucks.

There has been little "evolution of the technique of Islamic terrorism in their quest to do harm". The methods and objectives of the Islamic terrorists are mostly the same as those of all terrorists have been through decades. Bombs are the preferred weapons, instigating fear is the most common objective. That's why they are called terrorists.

Most people will accept these new rules and try to adapt. Few will try to figure out what the root causes for terrorism are.

 

[jdphoto]

There has been little "evolution of the technique of Islamic terrorism in their quest to do harm". The methods and objectives of the Islamic terrorists are mostly the same as those of all terrorists have been through decades. Bombs are the preferred weapons, instigating fear is the most common objective. That's why they are called terrorists.

Most people will accept these new rules and try to adapt. Few will try to figure out what the root causes for terrorism are.Jorgen Udvang

I disagree, hence the new rules that are being considered. It's a direct result of new intel. The evolution of technique. It doesn't matter where the bomb goes off, the results are just as disastrous. Trying to politicize these events in a photography forum seems counterproductive, imo.

 

[hcubell]

Yes, all those lives count. The question is if these rules would have prevented the incidents.

- MH370, surely not. The plane was hi-jacket, not bombed, and there were enough Americans on-board to make them possible targets.
- UTA 772 was a bomb in the cargo hold. "Secret Chadian Resistance" claimed responsibility. The French were probably the target. France supported Hissène Habré, the president in Chad at the time. Those terrorists represented his armed opposition, if they were indeed behind it. Libya has mostly been blamed for the incident, due to a conflict between that country and Chad.
- Metrojet 9268. It was never established if the bomb was in the passenger cabin or cargo hold. Russians were obviously the targets. Russia had just started intensifying their fight against terrorism in Syria at the time.

What has been established is that terrorists who want to bring down a plane mostly succeed in doing so. What has also been established is that terrorists who don't have the resources to bring down an airplane, mostly find other means of killing people. like walking into a concert with a bomb or driving into large crowds with trucks.

There has been little "evolution of the technique of Islamic terrorism in their quest to do harm". The methods and objectives of the Islamic terrorists are mostly the same as those of all terrorists have been through decades. Bombs are the preferred weapons, instigating fear is the most common objective. That's why they are called terrorists.

Most people will accept these new rules and try to adapt. Few will try to figure out what the root causes for terrorism are.

This discussion has no place in a forum for medium format digital camera systems. However, let me respond to your comments with candor. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about with respect to the capabilities and intentions of terrorists in 2017. I have far more confidence in the US intelligence services trying to keep on top of those intentions and capabilities in order to protect Americans and not worry about inconveniencing some photographers. We have a Department of Homeland Security. We want it to do its job. We have no interest in a Department of Homeland Surrender. We never will. That's why you and the rest of the world are not taking orders today from the Nazis.

 

[Christopher]

Just that banning stuff from the cabin to the cargo makes no sense at all. The risk of a fire through bad batteries is so much higher that it is just a dump idea. There IS a reason why you aren't allowed to check in batteries....

 

[jdphoto]

Waste of time. Nothing will change. Either you are allowed to transport electronics or not. The whole discussion about bringing it on board or checking it is BS. If I would want to blow up a plane I wouldn't care. If your not, well the US will find out that the rest of the world doesn't really need them.

Besides all that. Your not allowed to check batteries, have to demonstrate during security that your camera laptop works, but the other sides wants to check everything? That's just dumb.

Apparently, they don't teach history in the EU, as that's certainly not your forte.

 

[jdphoto]

There has been little "evolution of the technique of Islamic terrorism in their quest to do harm". The methods and objectives of the Islamic terrorists are mostly the same as those of all terrorists have been through decades. Bombs are the preferred weapons, instigating fear is the most common objective. That's why they are called terrorists. Jorgen Udvang

Neville Chamberlain comes to mind when reading your comments...

Here's a link that some in the EU would consider propaganda.

First on CNN: New terrorist laptop bombs may evade airport security, intel sources say - CNNPolitics.com

 

[daf]

..

 

[Jack]

Folks, I'm locking down this thread. We asked you to keep political views out of it and obviously that didn't happen.