Where does your quote come from? Where are these recordings? Who is on
them?
OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:20:56 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

The line that homeland security is the reason for no more
attacks....What was the reason in all the years prior to 911?

You seem to have conveniently ignored the other, failed al Qaeda attempt
to
level the WTC some years before 9/11.

You're correct of course....FBI did nothing to prevent the attack.
Guess the system works eh?

Oh and was it AlQaeda?

FBI foreknowledge

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an
informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the
bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot
to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was
privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role
as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out
of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem asserted that the original FBI plan was to supply the plotters
with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their
bomb, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be
constructed instead. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of
hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made
during discussions held after the bombings.

Salem said he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington
about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but
was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has
never contradicted Salem's account.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:20:56 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

The line that homeland security is the reason for no more
attacks....What was the reason in all the years prior to 911?

You seem to have conveniently ignored the other, failed al Qaeda attempt
to
level the WTC some years before 9/11.

You're correct of course....FBI did nothing to prevent the attack.
Guess the system works eh?

Whose system? Al Qaeda's? Yeah, that one seems to work. Ours? Nope, that
one's broken and so far no one seems inclined to fix it.
FBI--CIA--NSA--they all grandstand and do everything they can to take credit
for successes, all the while racking up more and more failures due to a
complete inability to cooperate and share intel.

Oh and was it AlQaeda?

FBI foreknowledge

In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an
informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the
bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot
to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was
privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role
as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out
of the hundreds of possible suspects.

Salem asserted that the original FBI plan was to supply the plotters
with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their
bomb, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be
constructed instead. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of
hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made
during discussions held after the bombings.

Salem said he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington
about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but
was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has
never contradicted Salem's account.

Rather nicely confirms my contention that the system is broken, eh?

As long as incompetence and resistance to cooperate is the norm in
Washington--both in politics and in police work/intel--we can expect more of
the same. I'm watching to see if our new Homeland Security system accrues a
better track record, but I'm skeptical, human nature being what it is. So
far, so good, but the verdict is still out, of course, on HS.

Max

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:24:43 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote:


"Mys Terry" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:26:29 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote:
What line? HS doesn't claim to be smoke and mirrors. That's your take,
not
theirs. And the evidence supports HS, not you. The US has been free of
terrorist attack since HS instituted its programs. HS may have
absolutely
nothing to do with that, but you can't prove it doesn't. So your
argument
is invalid.


My house was always very cold. This winter, I painted the house red, and
closed
all the open windows. Yep... Painting my house red sure made it a lot
warmer!

Unlikely, but since you failed to isolate your variables you, too, have no
evidence that the paint didn't raise the temp in your house as much or
more
than closing the windows.

Max


I'll refer you to your equally unsupportable (in exactly the same way)
statements above, Jeffy.

You seem to have conveniently ignored my comment "HS may have had absolutely
nothing to do with that . . ." I contended nothing beyond pointing out that
the original poster couldn't prove anything either.

Max (aka "Jeffy," apparently)

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:12:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:14:08 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:



Eaxactly my point.
Every non US citizen is subject to the most rigorous scrutiny yet 95%
of containers are left untouched....homeland security is a sham.

Let me play the devil's advocate here for a moment: So we've
established
that examining incoming containers is not feasible. For that reason, is
it
reasonable to simply ignore all other aspects of homeland security that
ARE
feasible, such as clearing individuals for entry?

Max

T's feasible....just look at the number of people employed to check
baggage, people and crdentials at every airport in the US.
Thing is, putting that same number of people into checking containers
has little political advantage because Joe Public won't see the work
being done and be able to wrap himself in that warm fuzzy security
blanket.


Have you ever looked at a shipping container packed full of, say, boxes
with
electronics? There might be literally hundreds or thousands of cardboard
cartons in a single container packed wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling. How
does an inspector check each carton to be sure it contains what the label
specifies? A single carton could contains plastique or the makings of a
dirty bomb. Are you going to open each and every one? Some containers
are
packed with loose items, and would be even more difficult to inspect.
From
a cost effectivity standpoint, it isn't feasible to inspect the contents
of
every container entering this country.


Ever thought that the level of personal inspection has lulled most
passengers into a very false sense of security so they are now not on
the lookout for stuff happening onboard?

I think about it every time I fly. But there is little or nothing the
average passenger can do if he spots something or someone suspicious once
airborne. Getting lulled into a false sense of security has obviously
helped the airlines avoid a plunge into the abyss of financial ruin. Most
of them, anyhow.

If, however, we abandon the personal inspections, what prevents a repeat
of
9/11?

Max


Max that's my point...smoke an mirrors and personal inspections are
there to make Joe Public feel as if there's something happening..where
in fact there is no way of protecting the US against an attack

Joe Public isn't as easily fooled as you might choose to believe. The vast
majority of us are fully aware that the measures currently taken by HS are
but a finger in a 12 foot hole in the dike. I have yet to speak with anyone
who actually believes we are even modestly secure now, thanks to measures
taken.

Most of feel we have a somewhat lessened likelihood of becoming part of an
airborne bomb now. And most of us hope that the current measures may, if
only in a very small way, thwart or complicate some attempts at terrorism
here. And we hope that such measures make it more difficult for terrorists
to infiltrate and function stateside. But we are not deluded, and neither
should you be with respect to our expectations. Everyone I know fully
expects future attacks of some nature.

Realistically our greatest asset against terrorism is the relative lack of
money on their part. Al Qaeda has hundreds of millions of dollars at its
disposal, but that's but a drop in the overall ocean of money being spent to
combat terrorism. Al Qaeda will always be financially challenged.

Max

"Mys Terry" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:39:36 +1100, OzOne wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:12:37 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:14:08 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:



Eaxactly my point.
Every non US citizen is subject to the most rigorous scrutiny yet 95%
of containers are left untouched....homeland security is a sham.

Let me play the devil's advocate here for a moment: So we've
established
that examining incoming containers is not feasible. For that reason,
is
it
reasonable to simply ignore all other aspects of homeland security that
ARE
feasible, such as clearing individuals for entry?

Max

T's feasible....just look at the number of people employed to check
baggage, people and crdentials at every airport in the US.
Thing is, putting that same number of people into checking containers
has little political advantage because Joe Public won't see the work
being done and be able to wrap himself in that warm fuzzy security
blanket.


Have you ever looked at a shipping container packed full of, say, boxes
with
electronics? There might be literally hundreds or thousands of cardboard
cartons in a single container packed wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling. How
does an inspector check each carton to be sure it contains what the label
specifies? A single carton could contains plastique or the makings of a
dirty bomb. Are you going to open each and every one? Some containers
are
packed with loose items, and would be even more difficult to inspect.
From
a cost effectivity standpoint, it isn't feasible to inspect the contents
of
every container entering this country.


Ever thought that the level of personal inspection has lulled most
passengers into a very false sense of security so they are now not on
the lookout for stuff happening onboard?

I think about it every time I fly. But there is little or nothing the
average passenger can do if he spots something or someone suspicious once
airborne. Getting lulled into a false sense of security has obviously
helped the airlines avoid a plunge into the abyss of financial ruin.
Most
of them, anyhow.

If, however, we abandon the personal inspections, what prevents a repeat
of
9/11?

Max


Max that's my point...smoke an mirrors and personal inspections are
there to make Joe Public feel as if there's something happening..where
in fact there is no way of protecting the US against an attack


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Max has a very short and overly selective memory. The U.S. had hundreds or
thousands of Russian missles aimed directly at it for 40 years and we
didn't
need a "War on Terror", a "Patriot Act", or any other such nonsense.

Max's memory is has greater longevity and is far less selective than you'd
like to believe. What you have conveniently overlooked is that your analogy
is entirely inappropriate for several reasons: 1) Our enemy (USSR) was
easily identified and nicely compartmentalized. Al Qaeda is neither. 2)
Dealing with the Soviet missle threat was simple--MAD, or mutual assured
destruction, kept both sides from pushing buttons for almost half a century.
We have no such arrangement with Islamist terrorists.

Our war with terrorists is more like a war against rodents. A population of
rodents can be virtually invisible, but inflicting constant and persistent
damage. You can't threaten rodents, and you can't simply aim a bunch of
missles at them and expect them to cease and desist. You take the war to
them, with traps, poisons, and by blocking their entry into your zone of
occupation. You attempt to anticipate their movements in the hope of
cutting them off at the pass. If you simply ignore them, you'll end up
knee-deep in rat and mouse **** by dinner time.

Oprah-zation has made the US into an overwrought bunch of handwringing
ninnys.

Fear mongering is a whole new industry in this country. Universities engage
in it, the various media base their annual profits on it, and it's the topic
of the moment over coffee and Oprah. Personally I worry less about
terrorism than about toenail fungus, and I don't worry about that at all.

The 400 billion Dollars spent so far in Iraq could have done quite a bit
to
solve real problems at home. 400 Billion Dollars... and counting.

Yup.

The entire "War on Terror" is a sham. Every last bit of it.

That's a rather blanket statement for someone attempting to pass himself off
as a pseudo-intellectual. I'm more than willing to listen to your
alternatives to the so-called "war on terror." But I'm guessing that you
have none. You're rather typical of the current genera of complainers--no
ideas of your own beyond whining about those who are doing something, if
ineffective and mis-guided. I'll take mis-directed action any day over one
whining while doing nothing more than urinating in his drawers.

Max

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 06:06:03 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

I believe it's up to 5% now.

Scotty


Now there's security in action.....:-)

How would you inspect every container entering the US?


When you say inspected, do you understand that they don't
actually open them up and check inside? Mostly they run an
x-ray machine around the container. A very slow process as
it's done now.
At least on the East Coast, they set a dozen or so
containers on the ground, in line, then drive the x-ray
machine over them, slowly. A costly , time consuming
process.
I don't know why they don't have a drive thru type machine.

Because it would be logical?

Max

Expensive, inneffective, and out of the publics eye so no feel good
advanyage.

Right, but a more logical alternative to the current expensive, ineffective,
and out-of-the-public-eye method currently being used.

Max

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 06:06:57 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

You're an ex-cop. How would you deal with terrorism in
Australia?


He'd remove all guns from citizens.

Yup. That would do it. At least until one of those from whom he was
attempting to confiscate a firearm shot him.

Max

Citizen would be nuts to try and confiscate a gun from anyone.

Yet that's precisely what the anti-gun fanatics advocate. I'm really
curious as to exactly whom they intend to send to do the dirty work.

Max

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 06:15:26 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:31:13 +0000, Peter Wiley
scribbled thusly:


Eaxactly my point.
Every non US citizen is subject to the most rigorous scrutiny yet 95%
of containers are left untouched....homeland security is a sham.

Couldn't agree more.

The real joke here is, after you pass thru the scanners, you can buy
drinks in glass bottles on the inside. And they're worried about Swiss
Army knives and the like?

Security? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa.

PDW

And on the aircraft, you're given bottles of wine, are served from
bottles, can purchase duty free in bottles, and your teeth are not
pulled in the name of security.

I've flown regularly for the past five years--often in first class--and I
have yet to be given a glass anything on a plane. Even the forks and
knives
are plastic.

Max

You fly on some crappy airlines!

United, American, Delta, Southwest, a few other connectors. Lufthansa, El
Al, and Virgin don't seem to have intra-US routes these days, Oz. Maybe on
international flights I'd actually get a real glass wine bottle, huh? Then,
by God, I'd have a weapon to ward off those nasty terrorist people.

This discussion is so amusing as to be comical. Do you honestly believe a
tiny broken wine bottle would have the same impact as an open Swiss Army
knife?

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message

I get fingerprinted every three years in order to obtain a firearms carry
permit. BFD--I have nothing to hide. It makes my fingers black and the
cleanup is a PITA, but hardly worth fretting over. It may be an
infringement on my privacy and personal freedom, but it is what I have to
do to accomplish my goal, so I do it without bitching. To refuse to do so
would mean that I am denied my permit to carry. That would affect me--not
those who have instigated the policies.

Good Grief!!... I have never been fingerprinted. I have a restricted weapons
permit, I have an airside access permit, I have a clean record..... having
something to hide isn't the issue here Max..... having information about me
stored within a system as displayed by the US government is. I have the
option not to have that information gathered. Despite our idiotic gunlaws in
Canada.... I don't require a retinal scan nor fingerprinting to obtain
restricted weapons permit.

I'm not chosing to become a global hermit here... nor am I electing to hide
within the masses by compliance. I am merely defining the limits of what I
find acceptable to provide.


And no, you don't offend my national pride, or any such silly, fallacious
conclusion you may concoct, in the least. My point is simply that your
indignation is placing limits on your ability to move about the world. It
has no effect whatever upon me or my countrymen. You're more than welcome
to stand on your principles and avoid the US. We don't care in the
slightest.

Bull****.... it's obvious it offends you. It's not indignation on my part
Max.... it's merely refusal to comply with ridiculous demands. We are all
limited as to our ability to "move about the world"... make no mistake
regarding that fact. Nonetheless... my not having access to the USA in no
way impedes my ability to travel to the remaining 80% of the countries on
this planet that are available to me.
....and Max, I most certainly will stand on my principals.

I guess, then, that you'll not be going anywhere a passport is necessary,
eh?

You're suffering a brain fart there aren't you Max.... I have a passport
and can travel to the majority of the countries on this planet.... which
do not require retinal scans and fingerprinting. I currently have an EEC
Passport, microchipped and a Canadian Permanent Resident Card as well as 2
entry visas to the USA labelled " permanent.indefinite for business or
pleasure" . I'm welcome almost everywhere I choose to go.

CM

"Maxprop" wrote in message

This discussion is so amusing as to be comical. Do you honestly believe a
tiny broken wine bottle would have the same impact as an open Swiss Army
knife?

Damn Rights it would..... I know, I've actually been on the receiving end
of a fight where my opponent resorted to a broken bottle. I've also been in
a knife fight. The cutting edge of a broken half litre wine bottle will do
ten times the damage with half the effort to four times the amount of people
than a fricken swiss army knife with no locking blade!!

CM