Dec 29 2006

UK Totally Exposed To Private Jet Jihadis

Published by at 3:37 pm under All General Discussions,The Duh! Files

You think the Western governments have their act together after 5+ years of adjusting to the post 9-11 world and then you read something like this and you just have to wonder what people are doing all day long:

The Government’s terrorism watchdog is to call for tighter checks on executive jets arriving in Britain amid concern that foreign militants could use them to enter the country.

In a report to ministers, Lord Carlile of Berriew will raise fears about a loophole in flight notification rules that means the UK authorities are only told about the last place an aircraft took off from and not its original point of departure.

This means that an aircraft that takes off from the Middle East, Pakistan or other potential danger spot and touches down briefly in Paris is listed only as coming from France.

Lord Carlile, a QC appointed by the Government to monitor its counterterrorism measures, believes this is a potentially serious weakness that could be exploited by terrorists.

You think?! Relegating this flash of brilliance to The Duh! Files.

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “UK Totally Exposed To Private Jet Jihadis”

  1. Barbara says:

    The UK is so PC ridden it is a wonder they accomplish anything in the way of anti-terrorism.

  2. crosspatch says:

    I believe we have a similar problem here. After 9/11 it was decided that General Aviation wasn’t so much of a threat. If you are looking at the aircraft itself as a weapon, that is to some extent true. But I believe, as the British apparently do now, that General Aviation poses a threat in the movement of individuals. A small plane can arrive from Mexico or the Caribbean or Canada at some small airport without the facilities to properly verify occupants.

    Forget crossing the Mexican border on foot, you can simply fly in to some dinky field in Oklahoma.

  3. Barbara says:

    We are letting terrorists in legally. Look at all the wahhabist imans who come here to preach. All the mosques funded by the wahhabists. The camps that preach terrorism. And the conversions of Americans to this hateful religion. And now the goverment is actively seeking muslims for the military. What next? PC is rampant. I realize all muslims are not terrorists but we can’t tell who is. Look at the individuals who have practiced terrorism in this country lately that the media plays down as mentally unbalanced.

  4. Ken says:


    Wahabists are not terrorists. A subsector is militant but the
    Wahabis generally say Islam should not be forcefully imposed on a
    people until the majority are (by voluntary choice) Moslems.

  5. Barbara says:



  6. All6LegsintheAir says:

    Ken and Barbara,

    In the January/ February 1965(!) issue of Saudi Aramco World, David Howarth has written an interesting tale of how, in 1901, the House of Sa’ud regained its kingdom from the House of Rashid.

    I found this article doing a search in the magazine’s archives for any mention of Wahhabists. My search had already led me to the Free Dictionary online, which said: “Wahhabi – a member of a strictly orthodox Sunni Muslim sect from Saudi Arabia; strives to purify Islamic beliefs and rejects any innovation occurring after the 3rd century of Islam; Ossama bin Laden is said to be a Wahhabi Muslim,” and an Adobe file put out by the Christian Action Network that fully supported Barbara’s claims that the Wahhabists were out to destroy all “infidels and heathens.” (Lots of scary stuff here.)

    But I didn’t think a Christian source would be convincing to Ken, so I remembered Saudi Aramco World, a wonderful magazine that is basically written for an American audience. I figured they wouldn’t say anything “negative,” but there might be enough information to come to a logical conclusion. I think I found it in this article, which explains that the sect of Islam started by Shaikh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab had first been embraced by the Saudis in 1750. Before the House of Sa’ud had been overthrown …

    “The heads of the House of Sa’ud had not only been rulers of an area of desert; they had also been the leaders, the Imams, of a strict Puritan offshoot of the Muslim world: the Wahhabis. This sect was founded by a holy man of the 18th century whose name was Shaikh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab… ”

    “With worldly and religious power combined, the Saudi domain, which had been no more than a petty shaikhdom, expanded until its raiding parties covered the whole of Arabia, and its doctrines were imposed on everyone it conquered.”

    “It was in this creed that young Ibn Sa’ud, the leader of the expedition of 1901, had had his training, and high among its precepts was the command to wage war on all infidels and heretics.”

    This is all admittedly very innocuous, but remember the audience for which it was written. It definitely admits that Wahhabists are out to destroy all opposition, and it comes from a source that has nothing to gain by admitting that. This is an example of why I often like to go to the “other side” for my information – and that leads to a comment:

    I discovered this site when I got sick a week before Christmas with some horrible bug that I’m still fighting. I was SO IMPRESSED with the respectful disagreements, the thoughtful analysis, the intellect shown. I was hooked; just hope when I go back to work I can wean myself away! But then there was a post from Ken. I wish I could read his first post. Was he always so antagonistic, or is it because you guys are so RUDE to him? I think you should listen – you don’t have to agree – and of course I think he should listen to you, too. I would far rather have a discussion with someone who has a different viewpoint from my own, politely stated, of course. Otherwise the viewpoints become rather inbred. I guess I’m just not too impressed with witty name calling. These are serious issues, folks. They’re deserving of serious contemplation!