Plotting 911
 

Capt. JG wrote:
I prefer off-track betting.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You haven't been hit by a train. Does that mean there are
no trains?


Jon, try to stay on track, will ya?





Monitoring the phone calls of millions of Americans isn't
very smart
or effective.


Unless one of those ''Americans'' gives up some vital info.

So, it is then ok in your opinion to monitor the calls of millions of
American on the chance that one of those conversations is between two
terrorists. Do you really think that's the best way to gather intelligence..
listening to some mom gripe about her 8 year old? Don't you think that it
would be more productive to actually intelligently profile the people we're
looking for? I guess not.

personal privacy is to important according to some.

It's a slippery slope from just a little bit of loss of
our liberties in
exchange for questionable security to a full-blow police
state.


Kinda like gun control, no? Oh wait, the libs are *for* gun
control.

Gun control? You're damn right I'm for gun control. I don't see any reason
for people to have dozens of semi-automatic weapons that are unlocked and
unregistered and easy to buy with no background checks by people who have no
idea how to actually use them. We make people take a test for car and truck
driving don't we?

Actually, no, you don't. Think about it.

PDW - posting in transit....

Plotting 911
 

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:58:12 -0400, DSK wrote:

"Joe" wrote...
Ossama's Fatwa said the duty of all muslims is to kill all Americans.


Edgar wrote:
Substitute 'infidels' for 'Americans' in your post and you get the full
scale of the problem.
However he does have a special dislike of 'American infidels' due, it
seems, to the scale of US involvement in his native land , Saudi Arabia and
US support for Israel.


Just because he's a whacko doesn't mean that anybody should
listen to him... that fact that he is a well-financed whacko
who knows how to appeal to the prejudices of a large segment
of the population makes him dangerous. The single most
effective thing President Bush could have done, IMHO, is to
have captured Osama Bin Laden as promptly as possible, and
put him trial while treating him as just another
law-breaker. Giving him any special status just helps his
insane cause.


Bush's blunders have made a superstar out of Bin Laden. A once isolated nutjob
in a cave now has the ear of the world press, and has become a charismatic
leader for thousands or millions more unhappy people then paid attention to him
before. The United States has made terrorism "cool" and attractive to
disaffected people all over the world.

All these hand-wringing ceremonies and such on every September 11th are the best
thing the terrorists could ever hope for. Yes, lets keep telling them how badly
they hurt us. That's BRILLIANT. The people who claim to be fighting terrorists,
keep doing the terrorists P.R. work for them. They can just sit back and enjoy
the show.


'

**** you Charlie! You are a loser.

Remember 911
Remember Pearl Harbor
Remember the Alamo

Joe

Joe


CWM

Plotting 911
 

When you're right, you're left. Or, when you're left, you're right. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
I prefer off-track betting.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You haven't been hit by a train. Does that mean there are
no trains?


Jon, try to stay on track, will ya?





Monitoring the phone calls of millions of Americans isn't
very smart
or effective.


Unless one of those ''Americans'' gives up some vital info.

So, it is then ok in your opinion to monitor the calls of millions of
American on the chance that one of those conversations is between two
terrorists. Do you really think that's the best way to gather
intelligence..
listening to some mom gripe about her 8 year old? Don't you think that it
would be more productive to actually intelligently profile the people
we're
looking for? I guess not.

personal privacy is to important according to some.

It's a slippery slope from just a little bit of loss of
our liberties in
exchange for questionable security to a full-blow police
state.


Kinda like gun control, no? Oh wait, the libs are *for* gun
control.

Gun control? You're damn right I'm for gun control. I don't see any
reason
for people to have dozens of semi-automatic weapons that are unlocked and
unregistered and easy to buy with no background checks by people who have
no
idea how to actually use them. We make people take a test for car and
truck
driving don't we?

Actually, no, you don't. Think about it.

PDW - posting in transit....

Plotting 911
 

They checked I had nothing taped to my legs!
But the thing about liquids is that two people can come on separately, each
carrying one component which is in itself innocuous and then follow each
other into the toilet where the second one can make a lethal mixture.
In the luggage bay or cargo you would need a complete bomb and I hope they
have good checks for that.
I do wonder whether they check airside staff as rigorously as they do
passengers every time they sign in for work.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All they have to do is tape them to their legs. It's been publicised that
way on TV, and I'm sure other ways would work also. They could also put
them
in the under-the-plane luggage, or send them via cargo, which isn't
checked.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Edgar" wrote in message
. ..
I just got back from USA today on an American airline and I can see no
way
anyone could have come aboard with liquids in hand baggage.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Joe, a trained monkey could do a better job. We've not secured our chem
plants, our railway/commuter system, or our containerized cargo. We
only
inspect 5% of the latter. We can't even prevent people from bring
liquids
onto planes if they get just the least bit creative about it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can
flourish
for everyone.


I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?

DSK

You tell me?

Can Hillary do a better job?

I'm all for it Doug...tell me who, and how they can do a better job?

Think Kerry could have done better?

Keep in mind the terrorist have tried many more time to attack the
USA
and all plots have been foiled.

Do we need to fight a kinder, a more gentle war?
If we do, will they be nicer and kinder too?

Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?

Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military
or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?

Joe

Plotting 911
 

In your luggage under the plane, they don't check for that... only hard
weapons. In cargo, they don't check for anything.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Edgar" wrote in message
...
They checked I had nothing taped to my legs!
But the thing about liquids is that two people can come on separately,
each
carrying one component which is in itself innocuous and then follow each
other into the toilet where the second one can make a lethal mixture.
In the luggage bay or cargo you would need a complete bomb and I hope they
have good checks for that.
I do wonder whether they check airside staff as rigorously as they do
passengers every time they sign in for work.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
All they have to do is tape them to their legs. It's been publicised that
way on TV, and I'm sure other ways would work also. They could also put
them
in the under-the-plane luggage, or send them via cargo, which isn't
checked.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Edgar" wrote in message
. ..
I just got back from USA today on an American airline and I can see no
way
anyone could have come aboard with liquids in hand baggage.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Joe, a trained monkey could do a better job. We've not secured our
chem
plants, our railway/commuter system, or our containerized cargo. We
only
inspect 5% of the latter. We can't even prevent people from bring
liquids
onto planes if they get just the least bit creative about it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Lets focus on winning the war, so science and education can
flourish
for everyone.


I agree, let's focus on winning the war. When are we going
to start fighting terrorists again?

DSK

You tell me?

Can Hillary do a better job?

I'm all for it Doug...tell me who, and how they can do a better job?

Think Kerry could have done better?

Keep in mind the terrorist have tried many more time to attack the
USA
and all plots have been foiled.

Do we need to fight a kinder, a more gentle war?
If we do, will they be nicer and kinder too?

Can you explain Global Jihad, and the goal of our enemy?

Do they see any difference of a citizen and someone in the military
or
have they sworn just to kill us all equally?

Joe

Plotting 911
 

You only need a drivers licence to operate a vehicle on a public road.
Big difference to what you said. Now have the grace to admit you were
wrong.

PDW

Capt. JG wrote:
When you're right, you're left. Or, when you're left, you're right. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
I prefer off-track betting.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You haven't been hit by a train. Does that mean there are
no trains?


Jon, try to stay on track, will ya?





Monitoring the phone calls of millions of Americans isn't
very smart
or effective.


Unless one of those ''Americans'' gives up some vital info.

So, it is then ok in your opinion to monitor the calls of millions of
American on the chance that one of those conversations is between two
terrorists. Do you really think that's the best way to gather
intelligence..
listening to some mom gripe about her 8 year old? Don't you think that it
would be more productive to actually intelligently profile the people
we're
looking for? I guess not.

personal privacy is to important according to some.

It's a slippery slope from just a little bit of loss of
our liberties in
exchange for questionable security to a full-blow police
state.


Kinda like gun control, no? Oh wait, the libs are *for* gun
control.

Gun control? You're damn right I'm for gun control. I don't see any
reason
for people to have dozens of semi-automatic weapons that are unlocked and
unregistered and easy to buy with no background checks by people who have
no
idea how to actually use them. We make people take a test for car and
truck
driving don't we?

Actually, no, you don't. Think about it.

PDW - posting in transit....

Plotting 911
 

Not sure what you mean... if you need to take a test to operate a car/truck,
why shouldn't there be a test to operate a boat? Happy to admit I'm wrong as
soon as I figure out that I'm wrong. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter" wrote in message
ups.com...

You only need a drivers licence to operate a vehicle on a public road.
Big difference to what you said. Now have the grace to admit you were
wrong.

PDW

Capt. JG wrote:
When you're right, you're left. Or, when you're left, you're right. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter" wrote in message
oups.com...

Capt. JG wrote:
I prefer off-track betting.

"Scotty" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
You haven't been hit by a train. Does that mean there are
no trains?


Jon, try to stay on track, will ya?





Monitoring the phone calls of millions of Americans isn't
very smart
or effective.


Unless one of those ''Americans'' gives up some vital info.

So, it is then ok in your opinion to monitor the calls of millions of
American on the chance that one of those conversations is between two
terrorists. Do you really think that's the best way to gather
intelligence..
listening to some mom gripe about her 8 year old? Don't you think that
it
would be more productive to actually intelligently profile the people
we're
looking for? I guess not.

personal privacy is to important according to some.

It's a slippery slope from just a little bit of loss of
our liberties in
exchange for questionable security to a full-blow police
state.


Kinda like gun control, no? Oh wait, the libs are *for* gun
control.

Gun control? You're damn right I'm for gun control. I don't see any
reason
for people to have dozens of semi-automatic weapons that are unlocked
and
unregistered and easy to buy with no background checks by people who
have
no
idea how to actually use them. We make people take a test for car and
truck
driving don't we?

Actually, no, you don't. Think about it.

PDW - posting in transit....