|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:50:45 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: It's quite possible that they didn't. Possible? I'd say obvious. I don't think anyone has drawn any concrete conclusions. Investigations are ongoing. Let's see where they lead before we jump to any conclusions. Seymour Hirsch noted that the picture of the Iraqi with the dogs involved an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT UNIT than those pictures previously shown on, among other things, 60 Minutes II. He details that over a 12 minute period two cameras were used. Now there were two soldiers with the dogs, who obviously didn't take the pictures. That's three people right there, assuming one of the dog handlers was also one of the photographers in other shots, if not, then we can get up to four. In one shot of the first set of pictures you can see four or more soldiers (from another unit). Right there, that's more than the oft quoted "6 or 7" bad apples. You don't even have to be able to count very high to realize it was IMPOSSIBLE for only "6 or 7" to be involved. This isn't "jumping to conclusions" or anything, it is just some common sense and a little math any third grader should be able to handle. Fine. Two more people have already been court martialed and I'm sure there are more to come. As I said, the investigations are ongoing. What is it with you and others here that you have to have the whole story RIGHT NOW!? It's going to take time to get to the bottom of this. Is that so unreasonable? |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
From: (Backyard Renegade)
Date: 5/13/04 7:30 AM Mountain Daylight Time Message-id: Wilko wrote in message .. . Paddlec1 wrote: Yep, just an "isolated incident". Here's something from the CBC. "3000 Prisoners Slaughtered in Afganastan This video is about how the US slaughtered 3000 Afgan prisoners of war. The video is big - 55 megs download and it is shocking. It makes the Black Hole of Calcutta look like a picnic. These prisoners were left in sealed truck containers to suffocate and fry in the hot sun. The few that survived a week were taken out and shot an buried in mass graves. The video is EXTREMELY disturbing and it will give you nightmares. If you are not ready to see this footage - DO NOT WATCH IT !!! This is NAZI level stuff." http://marc.perkel.com/images/AfganPOWsKilled.mov The funny thing is that this documentary was shown on German and Dutch TV almost two years ago, not too long after the invasion of Afghanistan. I posted about seeing it in a thread about the war in Afghanistan on Boatertalk, and got a wave of resentment and being called a liar because it wasn't shown on any U.S. TV station, therefore it wasn't true. If only that link had been available then. :( The sad thing is you are so ignorant and arrogant you beleive this crap, as if you are the only one who is aware. Bull****... Yes I know coming back to this group and picking on one of the biggest trolls Would you like to do a little search, and document that assertion? will get me the warnings and physical threats I got last time from Dennis "Physical threats"? That's a rather harsh accusation. How about some evidence to support that. Failing that, how about an appology? and others who of course love free speech until it is not in line with their agenda but you guys and your little circle jerk are getting a little out of touch with the real world... Or, maybe some of us have some personal experience with this war crap that would make us a little les gullable. Dennis |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:30:16 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: Well, it's not quite that simple. I agree that the restrictions on what passengers can carry have gone overboard, but it's important to make sure that they don't carry anything that could be used to damage the aircraft catestrophically. Firearms definitely fall into that category. I hope you're not referring catastrophic decompression being caused by things a passenger might bring on board, like a gun or other implement. http://kwc.org/blog/archives/000929.html http://www.nfa.ca/journalist/skymarshal.html It just doesn't happen. Years ago, I carried ice axes on a plane once, but I wouldn't try to do that again. I can see security inspection concerns, but aside from that, why not? You say "It's not quite that simple." Uh, yes it is. That's a completely unfair characterization. The warning system has a purpose, which is to make the public aware of possible threats and to enlist their aid in watching for problems. You left out that the public should be checking it's shopping lists. Bush has told us that shopping is a very important thing to do. When they raise the "terror alert" what is the message that the administration tells us? Go shopping, but be more alert when you do. Or continue to go to public (but not events where criticism might be aired) events, but to be "more alert." Rather than making sweeping criticisms motivated by your disdain for the administration, why don't you propose some better ideas? "Effective stuff" is not exactly specific or helpful, is it? I did posit some suggestions. One effective thing that could be done is to secure the cockpits. No more commercial aircraft flying into buildings as was done at the WTC and the Pentagon. Quit telling us that "two oceans" used to "protect" us. I suppose that "protection" is why the current administration was hell bent on building a missile defense (What was Dr Rice going to speak about on 9/11?). I notice the administration isn't yelling quite so loud about that anymore. It's time to take a deep breath and consider things calmly. Yes, a tragedy occurred on 9/11, but we can eliminate that possibility entirely, something the current administration with its Homeland stuff and the increased "security" around airports has failed to do. In spite of all the Justice Department's "efforts," not a single terrorist regarding 9/11 has been charged by the US. Why is it that the current administration wants more and more money for the Defense Department, yet denies funds for local first responders? Do you think that has anything to do with why the New York Fire Department personnel will no longer pose with Bush? Americans are willing and capable of doing more than just being frightened. Americans can understand fairly complex ideas that go beyond "them evil, us good," even if the Bush crew can't. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:48:35 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: Fine. Two more people have already been court martialed and I'm sure there are more to come. As I said, the investigations are ongoing. What is it with you and others here that you have to have the whole story RIGHT NOW!? It's going to take time to get to the bottom of this. Is that so unreasonable? RIGHT NOW I can tell that more than just "6 or 7" were involved. I didn't need any hearings to determine that. Why are we being told it was "just a few bad apples" when RIGHT NOW there is plenty to suggest it went much higher than that? I don't demand the whole story RIGHT NOW but then neither am I trying to close my eyes to evidence that is available RIGHT NOW. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
in article , Brian
Nystrom at wrote on 5/13/04 6:44 AM: They just want to whine and complain, and they're going to do that whether there's any reason to or not. Logical argument isn't going to sway them, since facts are irrelevant to them. Hi Folks, Just like the facts are irrelevant to Ret. General Wiliam Odom, of the conservative Hudson Institute. Retired Gen. William E. Odom, a former staff member of the National Security Council and now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, reflects the depth of dismay in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our interest to go into Iraq," he told me. He calls that war a "diversion" from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the war, finding WMD, "phony"; the U.S. Army overstretched, being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of building a democracy in Iraq "zero." In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. 'We can't afford to fail' -- that's mindless. But the danger has been done. The issue is how we stop failing more. I'm arguing [for] a strategic decision." From Salon.com Chuck http://www.wildcountry.info |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I did posit some suggestions. One effective thing that could be done is to secure the cockpits. No more commercial aircraft flying into buildings as was done at the WTC and the Pentagon. It is certain that UA flight 175 crashed into the S tower at 9:03 on 9/11 because we saw it on TV. It's fairly certain that AA flight 11 crashed into the N tower at 8:46 because it's missing and there was a plane-sized hole in the tower, although the event was not recorded on video. However it's dubious that AA flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at about 9:40. Look at these photos if you don't believe me: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm I don't understand why almost everybody makes fun of "conspiracy theories" yet fails to recognize that the official account of 9/11 amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
Even if there is a new President, he can't afford to allow this to become a victory for the Islamist. Strategically, the Invasion of Iraq has always been the right move, although the Bush administration has been very poor [articulating] why that is true. Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think... (and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth). Tactically, they underestimated the force needed to occupy the country and had poor intelligence on some of the so called allies, especially among the Shiite in the South. Letting go the Iraqi military without pay was a bad decision by Bremer. I'm not sure of all his bad decisions, but he and others did a good job (a bad job, really) of alienating the inhabitants. This I knew was true before the prison scandal broke. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:43:59 -0000, Bill Tuthill
wrote: It is certain that UA flight 175 crashed into the S tower at 9:03 on 9/11 because we saw it on TV. It's fairly certain that AA flight 11 crashed into the N tower at 8:46 because it's missing and there was a plane-sized hole in the tower, although the event was not recorded on video. However it's dubious that AA flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at about 9:40. Look at these photos if you don't believe me: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero...erreurs_en.htm I don't understand why almost everybody makes fun of "conspiracy theories" yet fails to recognize that the official account of 9/11 amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory. In the early 70s I was flown in a helicopter by my brother up the Potomac River, past the 14th St. Bridge, up past the Pentagon, on up to where I-495 crosses the Potomac River again (now called the American Legion Bridge, at that time it was called the Cabin John Bridge). As we passed the Pentagon, I imagined many guns and missiles and stuff being aimed at us and possibly fired if we deviated from course. My brother told me the flight route (up the Potomac and very near government landmarks) was indeed a very sensitive route as far as the military was concerned. Later, when I was in the Air Force, I was stationed at the time at Andrews AFB, just a short distance from the District of Columbia in Maryland. I was attached to the Tactical Air Command (TAC) and while I didn't fly jets (I was a ground radio repairman) those who did were quite proud of the fact that they could be "scrambled" (in the air, armed and ready) in an incredibly short time, well under 5 min. Granted, that was some time ago, but I am a bit skeptical of a Secretary of Defense who can't even defend his own office building. Did he think the Pentagon wasn't a target? Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
(Paddlec1) wrote in message ...
From: (Backyard Renegade) Date: 5/13/04 7:30 AM Mountain Daylight Time Message-id: Wilko wrote in message .. . Paddlec1 wrote: Yep, just an "isolated incident". Here's something from the CBC. "3000 Prisoners Slaughtered in Afganastan This video is about how the US slaughtered 3000 Afgan prisoners of war. The video is big - 55 megs download and it is shocking. It makes the Black Hole of Calcutta look like a picnic. These prisoners were left in sealed truck containers to suffocate and fry in the hot sun. The few that survived a week were taken out and shot an buried in mass graves. The video is EXTREMELY disturbing and it will give you nightmares. If you are not ready to see this footage - DO NOT WATCH IT !!! This is NAZI level stuff." http://marc.perkel.com/images/AfganPOWsKilled.mov The funny thing is that this documentary was shown on German and Dutch TV almost two years ago, not too long after the invasion of Afghanistan. I posted about seeing it in a thread about the war in Afghanistan on Boatertalk, and got a wave of resentment and being called a liar because it wasn't shown on any U.S. TV station, therefore it wasn't true. If only that link had been available then. :( The sad thing is you are so ignorant and arrogant you beleive this crap, as if you are the only one who is aware. Bull****... Yes I know coming back to this group and picking on one of the biggest trolls Would you like to do a little search, and document that assertion? will get me the warnings and physical threats I got last time from Dennis "Physical threats"? That's a rather harsh accusation. How about some evidence to support that. Failing that, how about an appology? and others who of course love free speech until it is not in line with their agenda but you guys and your little circle jerk are getting a little out of touch with the real world... Or, maybe some of us have some personal experience with this war crap that would make us a little les gullable. Dennis I suppose the off list email you sent me last year warning me of how big and tough Charlie and Wilko were, and also noting in a PS that you were big and tough too was not meant as a threat. Used to have respect for your views, now you are just a mad troll joke... Later |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
I think they are called "advisors" because it is not politically
expedient to call them what they really are, which is "combatants". It's kind of a back door way to get your guys on the ground without actually admiting to what you are doing. Maybe an analogy would be useful he Say you are the nation of Current Designs (paddling-related content here), and you are being attacked by the nation of Necky. The nation of Sawyer is providing "advisors", who are helping the combatants of Necky. Maybe they are providing advice, maybe they are providing arms and supplies, and just maybe every once in a while one of them pulls a trigger, even though he's "not supposed to". Are you going to feel any particular debt to the Sawyerites? After all, they're only providing advisors. On 13 May 2004 10:08:53 GMT, ospam (Larry Cable) wrote: Pete, we have provided arms and advisors to many an ally that we didn't control thier political or command structure, that's why they are called advisors. Some that get supported are strictly politically expediate, think Stalin, and some are long term relationships. Should we take responsiblity for the slaughter of Polish Army Officers by Stalin because we supported him when he entered the war with Hitler? Yeah, it sure is a hairy position. The folks you're advising are sometimes ungrateful enough to use the expertise they gained from you, against you. That's if the pols don't feed you to the wolves to save their own hides. I'm kind of confused: were we or were we not involved in Laos back in the 60's, for example? The Advisors are often in a pretty hairy position. They are often supporting groups that don't particularly like the US, but want the technical and tactical support that we can provide. Afganistan is a perfect example of this type of situation. SYOTR Larry C. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Hi Brian,
Please proceed to the nearest mirror, look yourself in the eye, and read your message that appears below. See who looks ridiculous. ;^) HEY BRIAN, THIS IS PETE!!! On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:44:56 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: They just want to whine and complain, and they're going to do that whether there's any reason to or not. Logical argument isn't going to sway them, since facts are irrelevant to them. Irrational statements, conspiracy theories and wildly fantastic correlations to unrelated historical events are their stock in trade. They'll go to any length to try to prove their point, even if it makes them look ridiculous. They're just trying to forward their wrong-headed agenda, nothing more, and it will go on ad-nauseum. Oh well, at least we live in a country where everyone gets to speak their piece. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
seldom_seen wrote: Does anyone else recognize this language, and get a bit of a chill from it? "We provided advisors, in particular fire control and forward air controllers, to the Northern Alliance. The US did not command the unit nor have control over the action of its troops." Pete, we have provided arms and advisors to many an ally that we didn't control thier political or command structure, that's why they are called advisors. Some that get supported are strictly politically expediate, think Stalin, and some are long term relationships. Should we take responsiblity for the slaughter of Polish Army Officers by Stalin because we supported him when he entered the war with Hitler? If there were U.S. advisors at the scene of the slaughter, then you definately should take responsibility. Just standing around doing nothing when people are being tortured or murdered means that you're involved as well. It's not as if these so called advisors aren't a party in a war, even if their designation seems to point in another direction. The Advisors are often in a pretty hairy position. They are often supporting groups that don't particularly like the US, but want the technical and tactical support that we can provide. Afganistan is a perfect example of this type of situation. Does that make them any less involved in the conflict or the U.S. government any less responsible? Often these so called advisors are in effect leading these groups of foreign troops and if these troops don't work on the U.S. orders (direct or indirect), and the group will lose all (material, financial and direct military) support from the U.S. if they go out on their own, ignoring orders given by the so called advisors. That's a pretty strong pressure tool, especially in times of war. Sure, at times they are just bystanders unable to stop something horrible from going on, but I seriously doubt that this is the case most of the time. As for this being an all out war: you can't have it both ways. Either you adhere to things like international law and the Geneva conventions for example, using them to call this a fight for freedom and against terrorism, or you engage in similarly disgusting tactics as the terrorists, agreeing with the commonplace use of torture, prisoner abuse and locking up great quantities of innocent people without looking after their human rights. You can't keep the moral advantage on your side if you invade sovereign countries with lies as the only motivation, severly limiting freedom for the people of such a nation and supporting regimes like Israel that consider murder and attacks against civilians to be normal policy. The U.S. government has been using double standards and strong arm tactics for quite some time now, but I'm surprised that it takes so long for the limited international support for this behaviour to fall apart. -- Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations. http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Backyard Renegade wrote: The sad thing is you are so ignorant and arrogant you beleive this crap, as if you are the only one who is aware. Bull****... Yes I know coming back to this group and picking on one of the biggest trolls Would you like to do a little search, and document that assertion? will get me the warnings and physical threats I got last time from Dennis "Physical threats"? That's a rather harsh accusation. How about some evidence to support that. Failing that, how about an appology? and others who of course love free speech until it is not in line with their agenda but you guys and your little circle jerk are getting a little out of touch with the real world... Or, maybe some of us have some personal experience with this war crap that would make us a little les gullable. Dennis I suppose the off list email you sent me last year warning me of how big and tough Charlie and Wilko were, and also noting in a PS that you were big and tough too was not meant as a threat. Used to have respect for your views, now you are just a mad troll joke... Later While I didn't receive any threats (which would have been laughable anyway), I did get bombarded with his whine-y, bleating emails until I blocked them. It's too bad, as initially we had some rational discussions and it seemed that he was interested in real discussion and finding the truth. At some point, he went over the edge and became nothing more than a pain-in-the-ass crybaby that glommed onto anything negative that he could find about the war, the military and/or the Bush Administration, whether it was true or not. It's sad to see someone who is so desperate to convince themselves of the validity of their position that they'll eagerly accept any information, no matter how suspect or bogus, that supports it. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:48:35 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: Fine. Two more people have already been court martialed and I'm sure there are more to come. As I said, the investigations are ongoing. What is it with you and others here that you have to have the whole story RIGHT NOW!? It's going to take time to get to the bottom of this. Is that so unreasonable? RIGHT NOW I can tell that more than just "6 or 7" were involved. I didn't need any hearings to determine that. Why are we being told it was "just a few bad apples" when RIGHT NOW there is plenty to suggest it went much higher than that? I don't demand the whole story RIGHT NOW but then neither am I trying to close my eyes to evidence that is available RIGHT NOW. That's not the story that's coming out of the hearings (though it is the opinion of some individuals). The blame is going well up the chain of command and it's looking entirely likely that at least one general and one colonel will be court martialed, plus their subordinates in the chain of command. While it appears that there were only a handful of people who actually perpetrated the offenses, the web of culpability is definitely going to extend much further. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:16:52 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: That's not the story that's coming out of the hearings (though it is the opinion of some individuals). There is no report from any congressional committee that I am aware of, your perception that "that's not the story that's coming out of the hearings" is simply your perception, nothing more. It is no more the consensus of any hearing than the "opinion of some individuals." I watch some of the hearings too (on C-Span) and get a radically different picture. The blame is going well up the chain of command and it's looking entirely likely that at least one general and one colonel will be court martialed, plus their subordinates in the chain of command. I can see 8 individuals, none of which are female, in one picture. There have been at least 3 females charged, shown in other pictures. That's eleven I can count RIGHT NOW. With your "6 or 7" bad apples and the general and the colonel that's only 9 at the most. And the general and colonel don't appear in ANY photograph that I'm aware of. The "handful" you refer to looks like it's going to have to be an awfully big hand involved. While it appears that there were only a handful of people who actually perpetrated the offenses, the web of culpability is definitely going to extend much further. If military investigators are at all like you I'm pretty certain that some (many) of those responsible will never be looked at. Just to make it clear to you, eleven is greater than the sum of your "bad apples" and those you have indicated in the chain of command. My friend, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster... (Apologies to the Music Man). Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think... (and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth). The biggest reason, aside from the general fact that Saddam is the most murderous ******* since Stalin or the Khymer Rouge, is as an object lesson to countries that continued to support radical islamist groups. The success or recent failures of the group depend on governments that are willing to allow them to train and stage in their countries. Whether or not that Al Qeada actually trained or was supported by Iraq is fairly irrelavent, I don't know why any of the Bush administration even mentioned. There has always been a tie between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, that's why Clinton bombed the factory in the Sudan, owned by Bin Laden and supplying the Iraqis. While I think the response was ineffective, the intelligence there seem to have been correct. Glad I asked! I thought you were going to mention the strategic importance of oil. Hard to say how many Saddam killed. Excluding wars, which maybe I shouldn't, it was probably fewer than Tutsis killed by Hutus in Rwanda. It seems to be true that Saddam supported Palestinian suicide bombers. That "terra" justification implies we are fighting a proxy war for Israel. Such a thing would not seem advisable on grounds of US national interest, unlike the quest for cheaper oil. Is it worth killing (what is it now, almost 800) American soldiers to protect Israel? Not to mention tax $$s. I saw a webpage claiming Iraq was behind the first WTC (van) bombing, but there was never any follow-up. Another conspiracy-oriented website said Iraq was behind the Oklohoma City bombing although that's even less likely. Bottom line: Iraq supported terror, but probably not against the USA. I do believe that this is all out war between the Islamist and the West. If we in the US and the West are not willing to take direct action against countries that provide support of terrorist groups, then we lose. However it's worth nothing that Islam, especially fundamentalist Islam, is by no means modern. These guys are not exactly going to make scientific discoveries and exceed the west in knowledge of and capability for warfare. It's almost like we're fighting old men. Islam is an imperialistic religion however, so maybe what scares western elites is its strangely strong appeal and rejection of modern global-trade values. Already you see some results, Libya coming in from the cold, the Saudis Government, and perhaps more importantly, religious leaders denoucing suicide bombings and terrorist murders. Even Iran is softening its hardline stance. IMO, if we pull out now, we have just paved the way for the Islamist to operate openly in every Arab nation in the Middle East. I recuse myself from further comment, being partly of Armenian heritage and a Tashnak sympathizer. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
Wilko wrote: If there were U.S. advisors at the scene of the slaughter, then you definately should take responsibility. Just standing around doing nothing when people are being tortured or murdered means that you're involved as well. It's not as if these so called advisors aren't a party in a war, even if their designation seems to point in another direction.. Then NATO and the European community is responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Serbian Population from Croatia and the atrocities committed by the Croatians? The European community didn't do anything to stop that action, which is directly responsible for the debacle that followed in the Balkans. The EU had European advisors standing around who were supporting the parties doing the ethnic cleansing? Personally I think the EU and NATO were at least partially responsible for the situation in the Balkans for waiting so long before acting, but that's not nearly the same as getting directly involved in the conflict with so called advisors supporting one of the parties carrying out atrocities... Often these so called advisors are in effect leading these groups of foreign troops and if these troops don't work on the U.S. orders (direct or indirect), and the group will lose all (material, financial and direct military) support from the U.S I don't see that in Afganistan. The local Militias had a command structure already in place and were by all non secret accounts pretty independent. Support does not mean control. While the US has leverage with these groups, that does not mean day to day control of the complete infrastructure. Several documentaries prove the opposite: small groups of U.S. special forces and CIA leading big groups of Afgan militia. The militia obviously followed the U.S. orders in each case. One is the documentary about the slaughter inside the fortress, that doubled as prison for hundreds of Taliban troops, the other that I can remember seeing is about a group of afghan militia lead by U.S. special forces raiding suspected opium dealers, suspected Taliban members and looking for weapon caches (sp?). Often in War you are forced to choose Allies that you would have perferred not to deal with in Peace. Stalin in WWII (or the French :^)) for example. And that is what the current situation is, whether you want to recognize that or not, a War. Even the best of the local Middle Eastern governments are despotic and oppressive, so what real choices are available? Although I agree that sometimes there is a need to ally with rather unlikely parties, one should try to look at the future consequences. The U.S. support of the Mudjahedeen in Afghanistan has direct negative effects on the U.S. troops there now. Allying yourself with nations that are having shaky governments doing all kinds of despicable things, for the sole reason of invading another sovereign nation where despicable acts are being carried out, but where you don't have any business, is plain wrong twice. In reality, the Terrorist have little protection under either international law or the Geneva Convention. While the Taliban would fall under the protection of the Convention, there is nothing in it that would prevent you from executing members of Al Quada whenever you captured one. So what are all of those Taliban *and* civilian prisoners in Guantanamo doing there, being tortured, not being allowed legal aid, not being given a reason for being held there? If the U.S. handles prisoners like that, then what reason does the U.S. have to point a finger at others who abuse prisoners? What makes the U.S. occupation forces any better than Saddam? How do you know that these people are innocent? I think that is an assumption that is a stretch in a combat zone. So far the proof of guilt has to be proven by the people holding them. As has been said time and again now, most of the people that were held in that Iraqi prison so far have been allowed to go free because they didn't have any reason to keep them there. That means that those people were innocent, but they were tortured anyway... If you've seen the methods that are being used by U.S. troops to extract people for interrogation, it should come as no surprise that many if not most of the people that are being put in prison are innocent. The U.S. government has been using double standards and strong arm tactics for quite some time now, but I'm surprised that it takes so long for the limited international support for this behaviour to fall apa Yet you didn't seem to mind when NATO intervened in the Balkans without UN support and the oppositions of most of Slavic Europe. If you remember my stance with regard to Kosovo, I wasn't for that action at all. I also think that NATO and the UN shouldn't have intervened as haphazardly as it did in the other countries in the balkans. Personally, my opinion of it is that Continental Europe would like to sit back and let the US and the Brits do all the dirty work and except the benefits of that effort, while point at how aweful our behavior is while do it. I would prefer to see the U.S. be completely disarmed, because most of the wars that were started by those that country in the last couple of decades have had little or no positive effects. In the other scnerio's where advisors, money and/or weapons have been sent, it usually only helped to further escalate a situation or cause serious backlashes to the U.S. and the rest of the world as a result. The U.S. is not the world's police force, no matter how much it seem to like to think that it has that role sometimes. It's maybe the world's vigilante, with a very skewed look at who does something wrong and who doesn't. The double standards by which the U.S. operates and the gross neglect of international law and conventions makes the U.S. one of the biggest hindrances to world peace. If there was a real world's police force, it should round up the U.S. administration and put them before the international court for war crimes, crimes against humanity and ignoring international law and conventions. Alas, we don't have such an organization. The U.N. was ignored and abused by the U.S. and other countries, and I don't see another organization with enough power come to life anytime soon. -- Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations. http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
Wilko The EU had European advisors standing around who were supporting the parties doing the ethnic cleansing? As a matter of fact, yes, at least in the case of Croatia, the UN and NATO did have observers in the area and allowed the explusion of the Serbian population. That's stretching wording beyond their breaking point Larry: there's a huge difference between advisors who lead and fight and observers who observe. Personally I think the EU and NATO were at least partially responsible for the situation in the Balkans for waiting so long before acting, but that's not nearly the same as getting directly involved in the conflict with so called advisors supporting one of the parties carrying out atrocities... NATO was not directly involved? Didn't NATO bomb the Serbians in both Bosnia,Yugoslavia and Kosovo? That's pretty direct involvement. Or are you saying that the atrocities were only committed by the Serbian militias and the rest behaved in a civil manner? Read what I wrote Larry: I said "getting directly involved in the conflict with so called advisors supporting one of the parties carrying out atrocities..." Taking a direct stance by sending in troops (or by patrolling the air space) is not the same as sending in "advisors". Still, I think NATO and the UN did too little at first and too much later on (Kosovo). But that was not the point here. U.S. support of the Mudjahedeen in Afghanistan has direct negative effects on the U.S. troops there now. We are actually back to supporting groups that we supported during the Soviet occupation. The Taliban was the late comers and really didn't take much part ing the actual combat during that time. You conveniently forget to mention that many of the Taliban were just locals who had their first fighting experiences with the Mudjahedeen and other fighters before joining the Taliban forces well over a decade later. Most of the U.S. support during the Soviet occupation came in through the south of Afghanistan, that's exactly where the Taliban had its origins. The Mudjahedeen in the north couldn't expect all of that to reach them if they didn't ally with the ones in the south. So what are all of those Taliban *and* civilian prisoners in Guantanamo doing there, being tortured, not being allowed legal aid, not being given a reason for being held there? You aren't keeping up with things. Taliban members were extended the protection of the Geneva Convention shortly after it became a issue. Some have even been released back to Afganistan. The "Civilian" prisoners are a differenct matter. So it's okay that those people were held there like that untill it became an issue? For a country that repeatedly knocks itself on the chest for being about freedom and equal rights, it's a bit bizar to see that it measures with two measurements. Either the U.S. stands for justice and fair treatment of everyone, or it's just as bad as the terrorists because it doesn't treat others with the standards it expects to be treated by itself. Which one is it? -- Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations. http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:30:16 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: Well, it's not quite that simple. I agree that the restrictions on what passengers can carry have gone overboard, but it's important to make sure that they don't carry anything that could be used to damage the aircraft catestrophically. Firearms definitely fall into that category. I hope you're not referring catastrophic decompression being caused by things a passenger might bring on board, like a gun or other implement. http://kwc.org/blog/archives/000929.html http://www.nfa.ca/journalist/skymarshal.html It just doesn't happen. I realize that, and no, that's not what I was referring to. Planes are full of electrical, electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems that could be catastrophically damaged with a firearm. It certainly wouldn't be difficult for someone to obtain basic diagrams of where such systems are located within a plane, if damaging one of them was their intention. Years ago, I carried ice axes on a plane once, but I wouldn't try to do that again. I can see security inspection concerns, but aside from that, why not? It simply wouldn't be worth the hassle. You say "It's not quite that simple." Uh, yes it is. As I've shown above, that's incorrect. That's a completely unfair characterization. The warning system has a purpose, which is to make the public aware of possible threats and to enlist their aid in watching for problems. You left out that the public should be checking it's shopping lists. Bush has told us that shopping is a very important thing to do. When they raise the "terror alert" what is the message that the administration tells us? Go shopping, but be more alert when you do. Or continue to go to public (but not events where criticism might be aired) events, but to be "more alert." Now you're just being plain silly and once again mischaracterizing the nature of the statements made by the administration. Do you want to have a reasonable discussion or not? Rather than making sweeping criticisms motivated by your disdain for the administration, why don't you propose some better ideas? "Effective stuff" is not exactly specific or helpful, is it? I did posit some suggestions. One effective thing that could be done is to secure the cockpits. That's already been done. No more commercial aircraft flying into buildings as was done at the WTC and the Pentagon. Quit telling us that "two oceans" used to "protect" us. What are you talking about. I don't see this being emphasized by anyone. I suppose that "protection" is why the current administration was hell bent on building a missile defense (What was Dr Rice going to speak about on 9/11?). I notice the administration isn't yelling quite so loud about that anymore. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that events have caused them to re-examine their priorities? What a concept! It amazes me that you take what should be considered as positive initiative and try to turn it into criticism. If they didn't respond, you be yelling "WHY NOT?" at the top of your lungs, wouldn't you? So now when they do respond, you attack them for that, too? Sorry Galen, but you can't have it both ways. It's time to take a deep breath and consider things calmly. Yes, a tragedy occurred on 9/11, but we can eliminate that possibility entirely, something the current administration with its Homeland stuff and the increased "security" around airports has failed to do. Excuse me? Have there been ANY other instances of planes being flown into buildings in the US since 9/11? Have there been any other aircraft related terrorist attacks? Granted, airline security is not perfect, but the threat of such attacks has obviously been dramatically reduced. In spite of all the Justice Department's "efforts," not a single terrorist regarding 9/11 has been charged by the US. So what's your point? Could it perhaps be due to the fact that they all died in the attacks? Should we expend resources to prosecute dead people? Obviously not. There have been plenty of arrests of related conspirators in other countries. Do you not think that we had a hand in those, at least in a collaborative/supportive role? Why is it that the current administration wants more and more money for the Defense Department, yet denies funds for local first responders? I guess it comes down to priorities. Do you try to prevent the disease or prepare to treat the symptoms if it strikes? Obviously, we need both capabilities and the trick is to strike the right balance. Perhaps we're not there yet, but the problem is never as simple as shoveling money in one direction or another. It's also not terribly useful to focus on one aspect and not the entire picture. Do you think that has anything to do with why the New York Fire Department personnel will no longer pose with Bush? Of course not. If you're really so cynical that you would believe that, I truly feel sorry for you. Americans are willing and capable of doing more than just being frightened. Americans can understand fairly complex ideas that go beyond "them evil, us good," even if the Bush crew can't. What in the world are you babbling about? You really seem hell-bent on creating the illusion of a problem where none exists. This so typical of Bush-bashers. Are we just supposed to accept that exaggeration, hyperbole and downright silliness are somehow justified in desperate attempts to criticize the administration's policies without offering any viable alternative solutions? If you have better ideas, let's hear 'em. If you don't, then quit yer bitchin'. You'd do well to try to maintain some perspective and emotional control. We all know that you hate the Bush administration, but like it or not, not everything they do is wrong. Criticism without justification only weakens your arguments. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:16:52 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: That's not the story that's coming out of the hearings (though it is the opinion of some individuals). There is no report from any congressional committee that I am aware of, your perception that "that's not the story that's coming out of the hearings" is simply your perception, nothing more. It is no more the consensus of any hearing than the "opinion of some individuals." I watch some of the hearings too (on C-Span) and get a radically different picture. The blame is going well up the chain of command and it's looking entirely likely that at least one general and one colonel will be court martialed, plus their subordinates in the chain of command. I can see 8 individuals, none of which are female, in one picture. There have been at least 3 females charged, shown in other pictures. That's eleven I can count RIGHT NOW. So what's your point? They're finding out who's culpable and charging them. That's how the justice system works and it IS obviously working. With your "6 or 7" bad apples and the general and the colonel that's only 9 at the most. Excuse me? I don't recall ever saying that there were a specifically limited number of people involved. Again, the investigation is finding the culprits and bringing them to justice. What the hell do you want? And the general and colonel don't appear in ANY photograph that I'm aware of. So what does that have to do with anything? The "handful" you refer to looks like it's going to have to be an awfully big hand involved. I said there were a handful of people (relatively speaking) who perpetrated the acts. That certainly doesn't mean that they're the only guilty parties. While it appears that there were only a handful of people who actually perpetrated the offenses, the web of culpability is definitely going to extend much further. If military investigators are at all like you I'm pretty certain that some (many) of those responsible will never be looked at. Exactly what do you know about me? For that matter, what do you know about military investigations? Just to make it clear to you, eleven is greater than the sum of your "bad apples" and those you have indicated in the chain of command. So what? Where did I indicate that I thought that they were the only ones involved? What I said is that the investigations were ongoing and I expected more people to be charged. My friend, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster... No, you are distorting what I've said and reading what you want into my statements. Your inferences have NO bearing in fact. You're also acting as if you know some "ultimate truth" that none of the rest of us are privy to. All you actually have is suspicion and cynicism, neither of which are legal grounds for charging anyone with a crime. You're trying to make an ongoing investigation that's apparently doing its job quite well look like some kind of sham. The justice system is working as it's supposed to and people are being charged as evidence against them is found. You're crying and complaining about the investigation before the outcome is even known! Get a grip, will ya? Let the investigation run its course, then we'll see if justice is served. Again, based on your other posts in this thread, this is all "classic Galen". To wit: - Complain if nothing is done. - Complain if something is done. - Complain about how it's done. - Complain that things haven't been done when they already have been. - Complain about the outcome before it's even known. In other words, complain, complain, complain, complain, complain, regardless if there is justification or if you have any better ideas, simply because you don't like the people in control. All of this stems from your hatred of the Bush administration and your zeal to discredit them in any way possible. These irrational statements and arguments show the depth of your desperation and make you look ridiculous. You really need to get your emotions under control and try to look at the situation dispassionately. In the real world, you simply can't have it all ways at once. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:23:59 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: I realize that, and no, that's not what I was referring to. Planes are full of electrical, electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems that could be catastrophically damaged with a firearm. It certainly wouldn't be difficult for someone to obtain basic diagrams of where such systems are located within a plane, if damaging one of them was their intention. I would say that the motive of attacking a plane would be either to gain control of it or to use it as a hostage taking opportunity, something which disabling it would be rather counter-productive. The attempted hijacking would be of no value whatsoever, especially if the cockpit were secure and it was known that an aircraft would be shot down if it deviated from it's scheduled route. You could post diagrams of electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems for all the difference it would make then. The most a terrorist gang could do is crash the airplane, presumably causing the death of those on board, but at least you would eliminate, I mean totally eliminate, the possibility that terrorists could ever commandeer an aircraft and fly it into a building again. As I've shown above, that's incorrect. You've shown that aircraft are rather fragile things, relatively, but you have not shown at all how a terrorist (or terrorists) could succeed in ever flying a plane into a building (or anything else) if some rather simple measures were taken. Now you're just being plain silly and once again mischaracterizing the nature of the statements made by the administration. Do you want to have a reasonable discussion or not? Remember those little "CD" (for Civil Defense) markings that used to be on radios? Remember the "duck and cover" drills? I can remember "Fallout Shelter" being stenciled on various caves. (Caves are very, very poor places to escape radiation, however the feds looked into it several years ago and at the time thought they would be dandy places to safely stash people.) Those are only a few. Can you name any comparable measures this administration has taken with the public in regards to the threat of terrorism? Being alert, buying duct tape and stuff or otherwise encouraging folks to go shopping, etc. isn't exactly similar. That's already been done. Securing the cockpits? The most I've been made aware of is to lock doors and reinforce them. I believe crews and others have been instructed on how best to impede the progress of those who might try to gain access to the cockpit, but cockpits are hardly "secure." When the current "security" measures are tested, they fail miserably time and time again, even when the FAA does the testing. What are you talking about. I don't see this being emphasized by anyone. Bush and others have remarked that among the other things we realized from 9/11 is that the oceans don't protect us any longer. That has been one of his rationales for pre-emptive action. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that events have caused them to re-examine their priorities? What a concept! It amazes me that you take what should be considered as positive initiative and try to turn it into criticism. If they didn't respond, you be yelling "WHY NOT?" at the top of your lungs, wouldn't you? So now when they do respond, you attack them for that, too? Sorry Galen, but you can't have it both ways. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I thought a missile shield idea was folly from the get-go. It is indeed unfortunate that the events of 9/11 had to happen to get the administration to realize that building some kind of missile umbrella wasn't exactly a top priority. Excuse me? Have there been ANY other instances of planes being flown into buildings in the US since 9/11? Have there been any other aircraft related terrorist attacks? Granted, airline security is not perfect, but the threat of such attacks has obviously been dramatically reduced. The incidence is down, not the threat. And, yes, shortly after 9/11 some guy flew a plane into a building in Tampa. It reminds me of the story of a drunk on the corner snapping his fingers to keep the tigers away. His "proof" of the efficacy of his snapping his fingers is the seemingly incontrovertible evidence that you don't see any tigers around. So what's your point? Could it perhaps be due to the fact that they all died in the attacks? Should we expend resources to prosecute dead people? Obviously not. There have been plenty of arrests of related conspirators in other countries. Do you not think that we had a hand in those, at least in a collaborative/supportive role? No, everyone involved in the plot did not die. Only those who actually were on the aircraft. I do not believe that only the 19 who died were involved. I just find it slightly incredible that in this length of time the government has prosecuted absolutely NO ONE. Not even anyone related. In fact, I think only a single person has been charged to date, and even he hasn't had a trial or anything. I guess it comes down to priorities. Do you try to prevent the disease or prepare to treat the symptoms if it strikes? Obviously, we need both capabilities and the trick is to strike the right balance. Perhaps we're not there yet, but the problem is never as simple as shoveling money in one direction or another. It's also not terribly useful to focus on one aspect and not the entire picture. If the treatment is wrong it doesn't matter what balance is struck. If "terrorism" is a disease, this administration is hardly in the forefront of prevention, let alone in preparation for an event in the future. Of course not. If you're really so cynical that you would believe that, I truly feel sorry for you. I only know that the NYFD will not appear with Bush anymore. I suspect it has to do with their treatment by the administration after Bush made his comment with the bullhorn. After that well-televised event, I, and I don't think I'm alone, imagined the New York firefighters would be solidly behind Bush. They aren't. What in the world are you babbling about? You really seem hell-bent on creating the illusion of a problem where none exists. This so typical of Bush-bashers. Are we just supposed to accept that exaggeration, hyperbole and downright silliness are somehow justified in desperate attempts to criticize the administration's policies without offering any viable alternative solutions? If you have better ideas, let's hear 'em. I have presented specific ideas time and time again. I have volunteered with the local police department and the US Coast Guard (I don't live too far from the Gulf Coast in Florida). I get much farther with locals than the current administration. If you don't, then quit yer bitchin'. You'd do well to try to maintain some perspective and emotional control. We all know that you hate the Bush administration, but like it or not, not everything they do is wrong. Criticism without justification only weakens your arguments. I'm not saying that everything the administration and Bush do is wrong. In this case, however, I think it is more "window dressing" than actually doing something. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:48:03 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: So what's your point? They're finding out who's culpable and charging them. That's how the justice system works and it IS obviously working. The "system" is exceedingly slow, and appears to need prodding. Excuse me? I don't recall ever saying that there were a specifically limited number of people involved. Again, the investigation is finding the culprits and bringing them to justice. What the hell do you want? Maybe not you specifically, but I have heard th "6 or7" number quoted often, especially on C-Span where I saw a move to limit the investigation to those "6 or 7" involved. It was last week, and even though I did not get to watch it all, I think it involved a resolution in the House to limit the investigation. So what does that have to do with anything? Noting that the general or the colonel were not in the photographs is ample proof that more than just those in the photographs were involved. There were a bunch of folks in the photographs alone, indicating much more involvement than just a "handful." I said there were a handful of people (relatively speaking) who perpetrated the acts. That certainly doesn't mean that they're the only guilty parties. Investigations from several sources now indicate that the "abuse" was at more than one prison facility. I have an honorable discharge from the USAF. While I was just a ground radio repairman, and I can't say it was the first day, very early on in basic training we were told about the Geneva Conventions especially as it related to us and handling prisoners, though there was no expectation we would ever be in combat or at all responsible for detainees or PoWs. In the military, especially if you are enlisted, you are told where to go, what to wear, when to be places, what to do, etc. You can't hardly breathe without permission. It is inconceivable to me that a bunch of enlisted folk could get it together to do such stuff without at least the tacit approval of a lot of higher ups. At a minimum a lot of folks had to look the other way. Exactly what do you know about me? For that matter, what do you know about military investigations? I don't know anything about you except what it seems you have written in this newsgroup. As far as military investigations, I have served, and have even been of interest to OSI police (before I joined). My father was a career officer in the USAF and my brother a career officer in the USMC. The JAG school was located on the grounds of the university where I used to work. It was not uncommon for me to overhear conversations of lawyers, both in the military and not. So what? Where did I indicate that I thought that they were the only ones involved? What I said is that the investigations were ongoing and I expected more people to be charged. It is going extremely slowly, especially considering the gravity of the situation. No, you are distorting what I've said and reading what you want into my statements. Your inferences have NO bearing in fact. My apologies if I have misrepresented you or what you have said, but I believe I have supplied many verifiable facts. You're also acting as if you know some "ultimate truth" that none of the rest of us are privy to. All you actually have is suspicion and cynicism, neither of which are legal grounds for charging anyone with a crime. I don't think that several, or even many, low ranking soldiers were entirely responsible, I'm suggesting that there were probably a lot of "higher ups" involved. I am not charging anyone with a crime, just pointing out that this all is much, much bigger than some folks would like us to believe. That much is pretty obvious. You're trying to make an ongoing investigation that's apparently doing its job quite well look like some kind of sham. The justice system is working as it's supposed to and people are being charged as evidence against them is found. You're crying and complaining about the investigation before the outcome is even known! Get a grip, will ya? Let the investigation run its course, then we'll see if justice is served. Yup. It strikes me as somewhat similar to the way crime on blacks was "investigated" in Mississippi a few years back. I was born in Mississippi. Don't tell me THAT should have waited for "investigations" to be complete before someone squawked. Again, based on your other posts in this thread, this is all "classic Galen". To wit: - Complain if nothing is done. - Complain if something is done. - Complain about how it's done. - Complain that things haven't been done when they already have been. - Complain about the outcome before it's even known. You can't read or comprehend very well, can you? In other words, complain, complain, complain, complain, complain, regardless if there is justification or if you have any better ideas, simply because you don't like the people in control. Granted, I don't think very much of the people in control, but believe me, I would be squawking no matter whose administration it was. It isn't simply a matter of who is in charge. All of this stems from your hatred of the Bush administration and your zeal to discredit them in any way possible. These irrational statements and arguments show the depth of your desperation and make you look ridiculous. You really need to get your emotions under control and try to look at the situation dispassionately. In the real world, you simply can't have it all ways at once. I think your rhetoric has run away with you. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:23:59 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: I realize that, and no, that's not what I was referring to. Planes are full of electrical, electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems that could be catastrophically damaged with a firearm. It certainly wouldn't be difficult for someone to obtain basic diagrams of where such systems are located within a plane, if damaging one of them was their intention. I would say that the motive of attacking a plane would be either to gain control of it or to use it as a hostage taking opportunity, something which disabling it would be rather counter-productive. The attempted hijacking would be of no value whatsoever, especially if the cockpit were secure and it was known that an aircraft would be shot down if it deviated from it's scheduled route. You could post diagrams of electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems for all the difference it would make then. The most a terrorist gang could do is crash the airplane, presumably causing the death of those on board, but at least you would eliminate, I mean totally eliminate, the possibility that terrorists could ever commandeer an aircraft and fly it into a building again. While I agree that a terrorist would not be able to precisely direct an aircraft under such conditions, that doesn't mean such an attack would be ineffective. Is it acceptable to have "only" 200 or 300 people die at a time in a terrorist act? Would people not feel far less safe about flying - and in general - if more planes were brought down? Consider the collateral carnage that would occur if one or more planes were blown up over cities and the debris rained down on the population. While the WTC and Pentagon attacks were symbolic, random acts of terror are actually more effective in terrorizing a population. No one will feel safe since there are no longer obvious target areas to avoid. As I've shown above, that's incorrect. You've shown that aircraft are rather fragile things, relatively, but you have not shown at all how a terrorist (or terrorists) could succeed in ever flying a plane into a building (or anything else) if some rather simple measures were taken. First off, those "rather simple measures" have already been taken. Where have you been. Second, as I've shown above, directing a plane precisely is not necessary. The bottom line is that your argument that lifting restrictions on passengers carrying firearms and the like is a ridiculous idea. Should I be allowed to carry the little Swiss Army Knife that I carry with me all the time on the ground? Sure, but there is no justification or need for me to carry a firearm. BTW, I own firearms and have no qualms about carrying one for personal protection if need be, but armed passengers on airplanes (other than police & sky marshals) is not going to make flying safer. Now you're just being plain silly and once again mischaracterizing the nature of the statements made by the administration. Do you want to have a reasonable discussion or not? Remember those little "CD" (for Civil Defense) markings that used to be on radios? Remember the "duck and cover" drills? I can remember "Fallout Shelter" being stenciled on various caves. (Caves are very, very poor places to escape radiation, however the feds looked into it several years ago and at the time thought they would be dandy places to safely stash people.) Those are only a few. What bearing does this have on the current situation? This all happened 50 years ago! Can you name any comparable measures this administration has taken with the public in regards to the threat of terrorism? Being alert, buying duct tape and stuff or otherwise encouraging folks to go shopping, etc. isn't exactly similar. Let me see if I've got this straight; you're now criticizing the administration for NOT advocating useless measures? What is your magic formula for dealing with the public in the face of terrorism? It seems to me that "be alert, but go on with your lives" is the only sensible approach. That's exactly what the administration is advocating. That's already been done. Securing the cockpits? The most I've been made aware of is to lock doors and reinforce them. I believe crews and others have been instructed on how best to impede the progress of those who might try to gain access to the cockpit, but cockpits are hardly "secure." When the current "security" measures are tested, they fail miserably time and time again, even when the FAA does the testing. Doors are locked and reinforced. Pilots are armed. Flight crews are now taught to resist attacks rather than complying with demands. Sky marshals are more prevalent. However, the most effective security measure is that passengers now know that THEY have to resist attackers. No terrorist or group of terrorists is going to be able to fend off 200-300 passengers. That is, unless we follow your ridiculous idea and allow people to carry guns on planes. Now do you see the stupidity of that concept? What are you talking about. I don't see this being emphasized by anyone. Bush and others have remarked that among the other things we realized from 9/11 is that the oceans don't protect us any longer. That has been one of his rationales for pre-emptive action. "Remarked" is the right word. The fact is that they're correct, though the realization of it has come too late. Whether consciously or not, Americans had become complacent about our security, since we live "over here" and the bad guys were "over there" and we're bordered by friendly countries. The events of 9/11 were a wake-up call in that regard. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that events have caused them to re-examine their priorities? What a concept! It amazes me that you take what should be considered as positive initiative and try to turn it into criticism. If they didn't respond, you be yelling "WHY NOT?" at the top of your lungs, wouldn't you? So now when they do respond, you attack them for that, too? Sorry Galen, but you can't have it both ways. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I thought a missile shield idea was folly from the get-go. It is indeed unfortunate that the events of 9/11 had to happen to get the administration to realize that building some kind of missile umbrella wasn't exactly a top priority. I'm not so sure that it's a bad idea, but it certainly appears that the technology for implementing it successfully is not available yet and that other priorities should take precedence. Excuse me? Have there been ANY other instances of planes being flown into buildings in the US since 9/11? Have there been any other aircraft related terrorist attacks? Granted, airline security is not perfect, but the threat of such attacks has obviously been dramatically reduced. The incidence is down, not the threat. And, yes, shortly after 9/11 some guy flew a plane into a building in Tampa. Shortly after is correct. There has been nothing since and nothing at all involving large commercial aircraft. It reminds me of the story of a drunk on the corner snapping his fingers to keep the tigers away. His "proof" of the efficacy of his snapping his fingers is the seemingly incontrovertible evidence that you don't see any tigers around. You could make that same silly argument about any security measures. What's the point? It proves nothing. So what's your point? Could it perhaps be due to the fact that they all died in the attacks? Should we expend resources to prosecute dead people? Obviously not. There have been plenty of arrests of related conspirators in other countries. Do you not think that we had a hand in those, at least in a collaborative/supportive role? No, everyone involved in the plot did not die. Only those who actually were on the aircraft. I do not believe that only the 19 who died were involved. Nor do I. However, most of the organization apparently occurred offshore. I just find it slightly incredible that in this length of time the government has prosecuted absolutely NO ONE. Not even anyone related. In fact, I think only a single person has been charged to date, and even he hasn't had a trial or anything. OK, "Galen the Supersleuth", why don't you tell us how you would go about tracking down the guilty parties? There have been numerous related arrests in Europe, where the planning took place. I guess it comes down to priorities. Do you try to prevent the disease or prepare to treat the symptoms if it strikes? Obviously, we need both capabilities and the trick is to strike the right balance. Perhaps we're not there yet, but the problem is never as simple as shoveling money in one direction or another. It's also not terribly useful to focus on one aspect and not the entire picture. If the treatment is wrong it doesn't matter what balance is struck. If "terrorism" is a disease, this administration is hardly in the forefront of prevention, let alone in preparation for an event in the future. And once again, what is your solution? Measures are being taken and whether it suits your timetable or not, it can't be done overnight. Logistically and economically, it's impossible. Of course not. If you're really so cynical that you would believe that, I truly feel sorry for you. I only know that the NYFD will not appear with Bush anymore. I suspect it has to do with their treatment by the administration after Bush made his comment with the bullhorn. After that well-televised event, I, and I don't think I'm alone, imagined the New York firefighters would be solidly behind Bush. They aren't. And what does that prove? What in the world are you babbling about? You really seem hell-bent on creating the illusion of a problem where none exists. This so typical of Bush-bashers. Are we just supposed to accept that exaggeration, hyperbole and downright silliness are somehow justified in desperate attempts to criticize the administration's policies without offering any viable alternative solutions? If you have better ideas, let's hear 'em. I have presented specific ideas time and time again. Where? Go back and point to specifics! You've made a few vague references to non-specific measures, that's all. If that's what you call solutions, you make the actions of the administration look damn good in comparison. I have volunteered with the local police department and the US Coast Guard (I don't live too far from the Gulf Coast in Florida). Now that's positive action and I commend you for it. I get much farther with locals than the current administration. Exactly what does that mean? Again, another vague reference. If you don't, then quit yer bitchin'. You'd do well to try to maintain some perspective and emotional control. We all know that you hate the Bush administration, but like it or not, not everything they do is wrong. Criticism without justification only weakens your arguments. I'm not saying that everything the administration and Bush do is wrong. In this case, however, I think it is more "window dressing" than actually doing something. Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:48:03 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: So what's your point? They're finding out who's culpable and charging them. That's how the justice system works and it IS obviously working. The "system" is exceedingly slow, and appears to need prodding. Sure, and if they hurried and you didn't like the outcome, you'd be complaining that they "rushed to judgment". Again, you're trying to have it both ways. Do you want justice or not? Excuse me? I don't recall ever saying that there were a specifically limited number of people involved. Again, the investigation is finding the culprits and bringing them to justice. What the hell do you want? Maybe not you specifically, but I have heard th "6 or7" number quoted often, especially on C-Span where I saw a move to limit the investigation to those "6 or 7" involved. It was last week, and even though I did not get to watch it all, I think it involved a resolution in the House to limit the investigation. I haven't heard of any such resolution passing, nor is there a snowball's chance in Hell of that happening. So what does that have to do with anything? Noting that the general or the colonel were not in the photographs is ample proof that more than just those in the photographs were involved. I don't see anyone arguing to the contrary. There were a bunch of folks in the photographs alone, indicating much more involvement than just a "handful." I said there were a handful of people (relatively speaking) who perpetrated the acts. That certainly doesn't mean that they're the only guilty parties. Investigations from several sources now indicate that the "abuse" was at more than one prison facility. And lo and behold, it's being investigated! Imagine that!? I have an honorable discharge from the USAF. While I was just a ground radio repairman, and I can't say it was the first day, very early on in basic training we were told about the Geneva Conventions especially as it related to us and handling prisoners, though there was no expectation we would ever be in combat or at all responsible for detainees or PoWs. In the military, especially if you are enlisted, you are told where to go, what to wear, when to be places, what to do, etc. You can't hardly breathe without permission. It is inconceivable to me that a bunch of enlisted folk could get it together to do such stuff without at least the tacit approval of a lot of higher ups. At a minimum a lot of folks had to look the other way. Again, no one is arguing otherwise. You're once again trying to create the appearance of a problem where none exists. Exactly what do you know about me? For that matter, what do you know about military investigations? I don't know anything about you except what it seems you have written in this newsgroup. Yet you seem perfectly willing to presume to know how I think and insert your own meaning into my words. One thing is for certain, you and I don't think alike. As far as military investigations, I have served, and have even been of interest to OSI police (before I joined). My father was a career officer in the USAF and my brother a career officer in the USMC. The JAG school was located on the grounds of the university where I used to work. It was not uncommon for me to overhear conversations of lawyers, both in the military and not. Does that qualify you to make judgments about military justice? My father was a career officer in the USAF and flew covert missions, but I don't presume to be an expert on related subjects. So what? Where did I indicate that I thought that they were the only ones involved? What I said is that the investigations were ongoing and I expected more people to be charged. It is going extremely slowly, especially considering the gravity of the situation. Extremely slowly by your "instant gratification" standards, perhaps. It doesn't seem to me to be going any more slowly than civilian investigations often do. Why should this take any less time? Just because you're outraged by it (as am I), doesn't mean that the investigation should be rushed. It's quite obvious that it's a very high priority for the military and the administration. No, you are distorting what I've said and reading what you want into my statements. Your inferences have NO bearing in fact. My apologies if I have misrepresented you or what you have said, but I believe I have supplied many verifiable facts. You're also acting as if you know some "ultimate truth" that none of the rest of us are privy to. All you actually have is suspicion and cynicism, neither of which are legal grounds for charging anyone with a crime. I don't think that several, or even many, low ranking soldiers were entirely responsible, I'm suggesting that there were probably a lot of "higher ups" involved. I am not charging anyone with a crime, just pointing out that this all is much, much bigger than some folks would like us to believe. That much is pretty obvious. Certainly "some folks" would like that, but the genie is out of the bottle and there's no going back to that position. This is too high profile of a case for anyone involved (Congress, the military, the Justice Dept.) to allow it to become a whitewash. At the very least, I'd say your concerns are unfounded. You're trying to make an ongoing investigation that's apparently doing its job quite well look like some kind of sham. The justice system is working as it's supposed to and people are being charged as evidence against them is found. You're crying and complaining about the investigation before the outcome is even known! Get a grip, will ya? Let the investigation run its course, then we'll see if justice is served. Yup. It strikes me as somewhat similar to the way crime on blacks was "investigated" in Mississippi a few years back. I was born in Mississippi. Don't tell me THAT should have waited for "investigations" to be complete before someone squawked. I addressed this a couple of paragraphs back. It ain't gonna' happen that way. It's not even remotely possible. Again, based on your other posts in this thread, this is all "classic Galen". To wit: - Complain if nothing is done. - Complain if something is done. - Complain about how it's done. - Complain that things haven't been done when they already have been. - Complain about the outcome before it's even known. You can't read or comprehend very well, can you? Quite the contrary, I think I've boiled it down pretty well. It sure seems that all you're really interested in doing is complaining about the Bush administration, whether it's justified or not. You don't like them and WE GET THAT, OK? In other words, complain, complain, complain, complain, complain, regardless if there is justification or if you have any better ideas, simply because you don't like the people in control. Granted, I don't think very much of the people in control, but believe me, I would be squawking no matter whose administration it was. It isn't simply a matter of who is in charge. After everything you've said in this thread, I find that a bit difficult to believe. That is, unless you just like complaining, regardless of the situation. All of this stems from your hatred of the Bush administration and your zeal to discredit them in any way possible. These irrational statements and arguments show the depth of your desperation and make you look ridiculous. You really need to get your emotions under control and try to look at the situation dispassionately. In the real world, you simply can't have it all ways at once. I think your rhetoric has run away with you. Your words say otherwise. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message ... BTW, I own firearms and have no qualms about carrying one for personal protection if need be, but armed passengers on airplanes (other than police & sky marshals) is not going to make flying safer. Just an aside here...I figure that, instead of a 'terrorist' watch, there ought to be a list of 'trusted passengers'; people who have passed a recommendation, security check and weapons training. Then, whenever they fly, the friendly people at the magnetic door, instead of confiscating their nail files and key chain, hand them a .22 or .357 or whatever and a handful of bullets. Then, if some hijacker wannabe pulls out a gun on a flight of say, 300 people, he will suddenly be facing about 150 handguns pointed at his sorry face. That might put a kibosh on it. Even if he manages to get one or two guns away from folks, he still isn't going anywhere. Just a thought. --riverman |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:57:40 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: Sure, and if they hurried and you didn't like the outcome, you'd be complaining that they "rushed to judgment". Again, you're trying to have it both ways. Do you want justice or not? I think it is rather interesting that since the story has been rather widely publicized the military is seemingly speeding up the various courts martial, without even waiting for the results of other investigations. It seems something other than a desire for justice is propelling these things, whatever you suggest my reactions might be. I don't see anyone arguing to the contrary. You are arguing that it involves a small number of people. I argue that the presence of the people in the photographs along with the two officers that seem to have been implicated indicate that the problem goes way beyond a small number of people. And lo and behold, it's being investigated! Imagine that!? Again, not a limited number of people. In the military, if something happens on one post and then occurs another place in the military, it is highly unlikely (possible, I'll grant you, but highly unlikely) that it is unrelated. Usually there is some link, either in the command structure or elsewhere, but events such as these are not usually unrelated. Again, no one is arguing otherwise. You're once again trying to create the appearance of a problem where none exists. If you were unaware, "looking the other way" is often called "dereliction of duty" in the military, especially when abuse of prisoners is concerned. Yet you seem perfectly willing to presume to know how I think and insert your own meaning into my words. One thing is for certain, you and I don't think alike. Again, if I distort your views, I apologize. I form conclusions based on how I read your words. If such conclusions are incorrect, again, I apologize. Does that qualify you to make judgments about military justice? My father was a career officer in the USAF and flew covert missions, but I don't presume to be an expert on related subjects. I am qualified to make judgments about military justice because I am an American citizen, and I have served to boot. I've also grown up in a military family. I don't claim to be an expert. Extremely slowly by your "instant gratification" standards, perhaps. It doesn't seem to me to be going any more slowly than civilian investigations often do. Why should this take any less time? Just because you're outraged by it (as am I), doesn't mean that the investigation should be rushed. It's quite obvious that it's a very high priority for the military and the administration. Maybe it is obvious to you, it isn't to me. Certainly "some folks" would like that, but the genie is out of the bottle and there's no going back to that position. This is too high profile of a case for anyone involved (Congress, the military, the Justice Dept.) to allow it to become a whitewash. At the very least, I'd say your concerns are unfounded. On what basis would you say my concerns are "unfounded"? There seem to be several many members of the press as well as congresscritters (and others) that have expressed similar concerns. I addressed this a couple of paragraphs back. It ain't gonna' happen that way. It's not even remotely possible. I think I may have heard a similar statement: "It can't happen here." Quite the contrary, I think I've boiled it down pretty well. It sure seems that all you're really interested in doing is complaining about the Bush administration, whether it's justified or not. You don't like them and WE GET THAT, OK? Like I have said before, I would be complaining about this no matter what administration was in charge. GET THAT TOO, OK? [insults deleted] Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:31:39 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: While I agree that a terrorist would not be able to precisely direct an aircraft under such conditions, that doesn't mean such an attack would be ineffective. Is it acceptable to have "only" 200 or 300 people die at a time in a terrorist act? Would people not feel far less safe about flying - and in general - if more planes were brought down? Consider the collateral carnage that would occur if one or more planes were blown up over cities and the debris rained down on the population. While the WTC and Pentagon attacks were symbolic, random acts of terror are actually more effective in terrorizing a population. No one will feel safe since there are no longer obvious target areas to avoid. I told you how to prevent planes being flown into buildings, not your speculations, suppositions and fantasies. First off, those "rather simple measures" have already been taken. No, they haven't. Where have you been. Second, as I've shown above, directing a plane precisely is not necessary. Correction, directing a plane is not necessary according to one (some?) of your speculation. The bottom line is that your argument that lifting restrictions on passengers carrying firearms and the like is a ridiculous idea. Should I be allowed to carry the little Swiss Army Knife that I carry with me all the time on the ground? Sure, but there is no justification or need for me to carry a firearm. BTW, I own firearms and have no qualms about carrying one for personal protection if need be, but armed passengers on airplanes (other than police & sky marshals) is not going to make flying safer. I haven't advocated lifting restrictions on carrying firearms on planes. The only thing I can see that might have led you to make this somewhat fanciful leap is my contention that if the cockpit were secure then passengers could carry AK-47s for all the good it would do. They could probably do as well with nuclear devices, are you going to state that I advocate passengers carrying nuclear bombs on planes now? What bearing does this have on the current situation? This all happened 50 years ago! Wasn't all 50 years ago. I know. I was there. Let me see if I've got this straight; you're now criticizing the administration for NOT advocating useless measures? Useless under today's examination. I assure you, these were not thought "useless" by either the general public nor the people in government that suggested them. What is your magic formula for dealing with the public in the face of terrorism? I don't have any "magic" formulas. I'm not sure there are any. It seems to me that "be alert, but go on with your lives" is the only sensible approach. That's exactly what the administration is advocating. Being as how the administration fought any investigation into 9/11 tooth and nail, that may be the only recommendation they have, because they are essentially clueless about the situation, and don't care to look into it. There wouldn't even be a 9/11 Commission (such as it is) except that the administration was pressured into it. Doors are locked and reinforced. Sort of. Pilots are armed. Not true. Flight crews are now taught to resist attacks rather than complying with demands. Some are, and some better than others. There is yet to be an adequate response from the FAA, the Justice Department, the Commerce Dept., the Department of Transportation, you name the federal agency, it doesn't matter, no one in the government has issued anywhere near adequate guidelines regarding airline crews and terrorists. Sky marshals are more prevalent. Perhaps now, sky marshall funding is one of the things that has been CUT by this administration. However, the most effective security measure is that passengers now know that THEY have to resist attackers. Maybe because they realize the current administration sure isn't going to do anything effective. No terrorist or group of terrorists is going to be able to fend off 200-300 passengers. I think you underestimate terrorists, as is often done. Experiences in Russia suggest you incorrect. That is, unless we follow your ridiculous idea and allow people to carry guns on planes. Now do you see the stupidity of that concept? Not tired of that strawman yet, I see. "Remarked" is the right word. The fact is that they're correct, though the realization of it has come too late. Whether consciously or not, Americans had become complacent about our security, since we live "over here" and the bad guys were "over there" and we're bordered by friendly countries. The events of 9/11 were a wake-up call in that regard. That is a common story, repeated by this administration. I have told you before I don't think that is true, and I have given examples. I think Oklahoma City showed us that not only were the terrorists not just "over there," they could live and work among the rest of us undetected. In fact, some of them could even be ex-GIs. I'm not so sure that it's a bad idea, but it certainly appears that the technology for implementing it successfully is not available yet and that other priorities should take precedence. Whatever your feeling, it would have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent 9/11, or anything like that in the future. Shortly after is correct. There has been nothing since and nothing at all involving large commercial aircraft. But you will admit that a plane did fly into a US building in Tampa, something you denied earlier. You could make that same silly argument about any security measures. What's the point? It proves nothing. The fact that an event did not occur does not mean you had any hand in preventing such an act. Nor do I. However, most of the organization apparently occurred offshore. And of the remainder, only one single person has ever been charged in the US regarding the attack. How long ago was it? OK, "Galen the Supersleuth", why don't you tell us how you would go about tracking down the guilty parties? I am not paid track them down, hell, they don't even ask me, but I would start with an investigation, something the current administration didn't want. There have been numerous related arrests in Europe, where the planning took place. See. It could be done here too, where the actual event took place, not just the planning. And once again, what is your solution? Measures are being taken and whether it suits your timetable or not, it can't be done overnight. Logistically and economically, it's impossible. Investigate it openly and thoroughly right afterwards? That would have been a good start. And what does that prove? It doesn't prove anything, it wasn't meant to. I just would have expected the firefighters in New York to be more supportive of Bush, especially after he made his speech with the bullhorn at the WTC wreckage. It seems they were for awhile, but now refuse to be even photographed with him. Where? Go back and point to specifics! You've made a few vague references to non-specific measures, that's all. If that's what you call solutions, you make the actions of the administration look damn good in comparison. I'm not going to play the "gotcha" game with you. Exactly what does that mean? Again, another vague reference. Whenever I have approached the administration, either through the website, letters, etc. I get a (polite, mind you) rejection of any and all offers. However, when I make the same offers to local officials (who don't know me or know of me any more than the feds) I get an entirely different reception, and any offer of help I've found quite welcome. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Tue, 18 May 2004 11:31:39 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: While I agree that a terrorist would not be able to precisely direct an aircraft under such conditions, that doesn't mean such an attack would be ineffective. Is it acceptable to have "only" 200 or 300 people die at a time in a terrorist act? Would people not feel far less safe about flying - and in general - if more planes were brought down? Consider the collateral carnage that would occur if one or more planes were blown up over cities and the debris rained down on the population. While the WTC and Pentagon attacks were symbolic, random acts of terror are actually more effective in terrorizing a population. No one will feel safe since there are no longer obvious target areas to avoid. I told you how to prevent planes being flown into buildings, not your speculations, suppositions and fantasies. No, you suggested that passengers should be allowed to carry firearms on planes (Do you have a memory problem or something?) and I'm explaining why that's an incredibly stupid and dangerous idea. First off, those "rather simple measures" have already been taken. No, they haven't. Where have you been. Second, as I've shown above, directing a plane precisely is not necessary. Correction, directing a plane is not necessary according to one (some?) of your speculation. OK, so it's fine with you if people die, as long as the plane isn't directed into a building? Get a grip! It's not acceptable for people to be killed by terrorists, PERIOD! The bottom line is that your argument that lifting restrictions on passengers carrying firearms and the like is a ridiculous idea. Should I be allowed to carry the little Swiss Army Knife that I carry with me all the time on the ground? Sure, but there is no justification or need for me to carry a firearm. BTW, I own firearms and have no qualms about carrying one for personal protection if need be, but armed passengers on airplanes (other than police & sky marshals) is not going to make flying safer. I haven't advocated lifting restrictions on carrying firearms on planes. The only thing I can see that might have led you to make this somewhat fanciful leap is my contention that if the cockpit were secure then passengers could carry AK-47s for all the good it would do. They could probably do as well with nuclear devices, are you going to state that I advocate passengers carrying nuclear bombs on planes now? Go back and read your own words. You definitely have a memory problem. What bearing does this have on the current situation? This all happened 50 years ago! Wasn't all 50 years ago. I know. I was there. OK, 45 years ago. What's the difference? Let me see if I've got this straight; you're now criticizing the administration for NOT advocating useless measures? Useless under today's examination. I assure you, these were not thought "useless" by either the general public nor the people in government that suggested them. So what? Are you actually stating that you think it would be a good idea for the government to advocate useless measures as a way of asuaging public concern? Why, so you can turn around and point out that the measures are useless and throw it back in their faces? You're getting more ridiculous with each post. What is your magic formula for dealing with the public in the face of terrorism? I don't have any "magic" formulas. I'm not sure there are any. So, it appears that you're part of the DO SOMETHING NOW! crowd, even if it's pointless. Would useless government actions actually make you feel better. It sounds like that's what you're looking for, the government to tell you to do something to take your mind off the problem and make you feel better. Sorry, but that's not a solution. It seems to me that "be alert, but go on with your lives" is the only sensible approach. That's exactly what the administration is advocating. Being as how the administration fought any investigation into 9/11 tooth and nail, that may be the only recommendation they have, because they are essentially clueless about the situation, and don't care to look into it. There wouldn't even be a 9/11 Commission (such as it is) except that the administration was pressured into it. An investigation was inevitable. Everyone knew that. Doors are locked and reinforced. Sort of. What do you expect, bank vault doors? Pilots are armed. Not true. Ok, SOME pilots are armed. That still has a significant deterrent effect. Flight crews are now taught to resist attacks rather than complying with demands. Some are, and some better than others. There is yet to be an adequate response from the FAA, the Justice Department, the Commerce Dept., the Department of Transportation, you name the federal agency, it doesn't matter, no one in the government has issued anywhere near adequate guidelines regarding airline crews and terrorists. The airlines have taken it upon themselves (and rightfully so) to deal with much of this. However, the most effective security measure is that passengers now know that THEY have to resist attackers. Maybe because they realize the current administration sure isn't going to do anything effective. You just can't let it go, can you? Once again, you're wrong. The public now understands the nature of the threat and what they need to do about it. That's why they'll fight back. No terrorist or group of terrorists is going to be able to fend off 200-300 passengers. I think you underestimate terrorists, as is often done. Experiences in Russia suggest you incorrect. So now you're trying to equate Russian airline "security" with ours? That's a bad joke and you know it. That is, unless we follow your ridiculous idea and allow people to carry guns on planes. Now do you see the stupidity of that concept? Not tired of that strawman yet, I see. You brought it up, so live with it. "Remarked" is the right word. The fact is that they're correct, though the realization of it has come too late. Whether consciously or not, Americans had become complacent about our security, since we live "over here" and the bad guys were "over there" and we're bordered by friendly countries. The events of 9/11 were a wake-up call in that regard. That is a common story, repeated by this administration. I have told you before I don't think that is true, and I have given examples. I think Oklahoma City showed us that not only were the terrorists not just "over there," they could live and work among the rest of us undetected. In fact, some of them could even be ex-GIs. Oklahoma city never seemed to have the impact that it probably should have on the public. I'm not quite sure why, though I suspect that some of it is that we've become desensitised to domestic violence. For some reason, we seem to be more accepting of us killing each other than of foreigners killing us. I don't see the difference personally. Dead is dead. I'm not so sure that it's a bad idea, but it certainly appears that the technology for implementing it successfully is not available yet and that other priorities should take precedence. Whatever your feeling, it would have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent 9/11, or anything like that in the future. Who claimed that it would have? It's a missle defense system. It's designed to protect against missles. That's pretty evident. Shortly after is correct. There has been nothing since and nothing at all involving large commercial aircraft. But you will admit that a plane did fly into a US building in Tampa, something you denied earlier. I never denied that. Admittedly, I had forgotten about it until you brought it up, but it was a minor incident anyway. You could make that same silly argument about any security measures. What's the point? It proves nothing. The fact that an event did not occur does not mean you had any hand in preventing such an act. It also doesn't mean that you didn't have a hand in preventing it. Nor do I. However, most of the organization apparently occurred offshore. And of the remainder, only one single person has ever been charged in the US regarding the attack. How long ago was it? So what? Either there isn't anyone here in the US to charge or we haven't found them yet. It's a big country with lots of places to hide. It's entirely possible that anyone who was here has fled. OK, "Galen the Supersleuth", why don't you tell us how you would go about tracking down the guilty parties? I am not paid track them down, hell, they don't even ask me, but I would start with an investigation, something the current administration didn't want. There are plenty of investigations going on. I know that NOTHING will ever happen fast enough to suit YOU, but I'm satisfied that the issues are being investigated fully an vigorously. There have been numerous related arrests in Europe, where the planning took place. See. It could be done here too, where the actual event took place, not just the planning. You really don't get it, do you? And once again, what is your solution? Measures are being taken and whether it suits your timetable or not, it can't be done overnight. Logistically and economically, it's impossible. Investigate it openly and thoroughly right afterwards? That would have been a good start. Back to that again, eh? You really have nothing constructive to say, do you? And what does that prove? It doesn't prove anything, it wasn't meant to. Then why bring it up? I just would have expected the firefighters in New York to be more supportive of Bush, especially after he made his speech with the bullhorn at the WTC wreckage. It seems they were for awhile, but now refuse to be even photographed with him. And you know this how? Have you interviewed any New York firefighters? Where? Go back and point to specifics! You've made a few vague references to non-specific measures, that's all. If that's what you call solutions, you make the actions of the administration look damn good in comparison. I'm not going to play the "gotcha" game with you. Nonsense. You have contributed nothing, so there's nothing to go back to. Exactly what does that mean? Again, another vague reference. Whenever I have approached the administration, either through the website, letters, etc. I get a (polite, mind you) rejection of any and all offers. However, when I make the same offers to local officials (who don't know me or know of me any more than the feds) I get an entirely different reception, and any offer of help I've found quite welcome. Has it ever occurred to you that they simply need the help more? Regardless, I've had enough of this stupidity. It's obvious that your only intent is to whine and complain about the administration. I've got better things to do than respond to your pointless circular arguments and endless bleating. There are kayaks that need paddling. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:05:44 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: Go back and read your own words. You definitely have a memory problem. Are you referring to these words? "Right. The same folks that told us "everything changed on 9/11. We are no longer protected by two oceans." During the entire "duck and cover" era I, and I'll bet I'm not alone, did NOT feel protected by two oceans. I don't know many people who felt oceans were much protection against ICBMs. I can't remember a soul in Texas during the Cuban missile crisis that felt much protection, either. As far as dealing with threats, there is a lot of expense going on at airports regarding passengers and what they can carry. If the cockpit door is secured (and I have talked about this several times with my brother, a retired USMC pilot who after his Marine career piloted some of that heavy metal for commercial airlines) then it doesn't matter what the passengers carry. They can carry AK-47s if they want, they still aren't going to get control of the plane if the cockpit is secure. That and instructing pilots that it would be a possible "shoot down" type of offence if they deviate from their flight schedules. Bingo. Never again will a commercial aircraft fly into a skyscraper, and passengers needn't even be bothered." That is what I said. Perhaps you can find something else that is illustrative of my suggesting that a ban on firearms on aircraft should be dropped. I can't find anything that might resemble that, this is the closest I can find, and it is a far cry from a recommendation that airline security be dropped with regards to firearms. I have been losing my ability to speak these past few years, and, as a consequence, find myself observing conversations far more often than I participate in them now. One of the things I have noticed is that it doesn't take very long at all for someone to come up with a response to what someone is saying. Often the response is being thought about and formulated early on while the other person has just started talking. You can see it in facial expressions, body language, a bunch of things, not to mention that the response is often not about what the person said but about what the responder *thought* the person was going to say. You see this time and time again in conversations. This is not to be confused with politically charged reactions, which are often an "us against them" type of knee-jerk response. I don't know the reason behind it, but you seem to reach conclusions that are more tuned to what you want to hear than what is actually said. Perhaps your desire to "win" an argument overcomes your ability to read and comprehend. OK, 45 years ago. What's the difference? Wasn't 45 years ago either. I guess the difference is that you haven't a clue, do you? Like I say, I do. I was there. So what? Are you actually stating that you think it would be a good idea for the government to advocate useless measures as a way of asuaging public concern? Hardly, but it can be argued that would be better than the nothing effective that they are doing now with respect to the public and terrorism. Why, so you can turn around and point out that the measures are useless and throw it back in their faces? You're getting more ridiculous with each post. I'd possibly "throw it back," although that would not be a goal of mine at all. So, it appears that you're part of the DO SOMETHING NOW! crowd, even if it's pointless. Would useless government actions actually make you feel better. It sounds like that's what you're looking for, the government to tell you to do something to take your mind off the problem and make you feel better. Sorry, but that's not a solution. When the president reminds us constantly that his first priority is to protect the American public, one tends to expect the federal government to do something promptly. And if the government does happen to hit on something effective (they often are, even though I point at obvious failures) then it is indeed a solution, even if it is done NOW. An investigation was inevitable. Everyone knew that. Except Bush and his advisors it seems. Although even they gave in eventually. What do you expect, bank vault doors? No. Some "re-inforcements" are better than others. Ok, SOME pilots are armed. That still has a significant deterrent effect. Maybe, but we are trying to frighten the terrorists, not the passengers and flight crew. The airlines have taken it upon themselves (and rightfully so) to deal with much of this. Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? As a broader point, you might detail what they have *ever* done for passenger safety that wasn't federally mandated. You just can't let it go, can you? Once again, you're wrong. The public now understands the nature of the threat and what they need to do about it. That's why they'll fight back. Nope. I can't let it go. I used to be stationed at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, just minutes from Washington DC and the Pentagon. I still don't understand why fighter jets weren't scrambled promptly on 9/11. My brother is a (retired) USMC pilot and he can't explain it either. It isn't like there aren't a bunch of military installations and government buildings there. I guess the lesson is that the government isn't going to do *anything*, so it's up to the passengers and crew. I think the general public is begriming to realize that. So now you're trying to equate Russian airline "security" with ours? That's a bad joke and you know it. No, it was in response to your claim that terrorists couldn't control two or three hundred. Obviously they can, and have. It wasn't on an airliner, either. Oklahoma city never seemed to have the impact that it probably should have on the public. I'm not quite sure why, though I suspect that some of it is that we've become desensitised to domestic violence. For some reason, we seem to be more accepting of us killing each other than of foreigners killing us. I don't see the difference personally. Dead is dead. Nonetheless, it did serve to show that terrorism is not only in other countries, it is homegrown as well. Who claimed that it would have? It's a missle defense system. It's designed to protect against missles. That's pretty evident. It's also pretty evident that such a "threat" is rather remote, to say the least. I never denied that. Admittedly, I had forgotten about it until you brought it up, but it was a minor incident anyway. Denied, forgotten, "conveniently" forgotten, whatever. So what? Either there isn't anyone here in the US to charge or we haven't found them yet. It's a big country with lots of places to hide. It's entirely possible that anyone who was here has fled. Especially if they were relatives of Osama and were allowed to fly private jets out of the country right after 9/11 when no one else could. There are plenty of investigations going on. I know that NOTHING will ever happen fast enough to suit YOU, but I'm satisfied that the issues are being investigated fully an vigorously. What's it been, about 2 1/2 years? Is anything SLOW enough for you? You really don't get it, do you? Certainly not the way you'd like me to see it. Back to that again, eh? You really have nothing constructive to say, do you? You really have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you? And you know this how? Have you interviewed any New York firefighters? Nope. I haven't interviewed any New York firefighters. I used to see pictures of them with Bush, a lot of them. Somehow I'm on some Republican mailing list and I get tiny photos (with offers for bigger ones if I "give" to the Republicans) often. Then I quit getting photos of Bush with the firefighters, though I still got others. I asked around. I was told by several folks that the NY firefighters in particular were pretty ****ed at the empty promises Bush made to them especially in the wake of 9/11. I haven't heard any contradiction to that, I haven't even heard of it being explained as some Democrat plot, yet... Has it ever occurred to you that they simply need the help more? Has it ever occurred to you to ask why the locals should need more help than the feds, especially when terrorism is a *national* problem and local measures are *federally* mandated? Regardless, I've had enough of this stupidity. It's obvious that your only intent is to whine and complain about the administration. I've got better things to do than respond to your pointless circular arguments and endless bleating. There are kayaks that need paddling. Maybe you think yours do, but I would never spank any of my kayaks. Besides, they are too well behaved. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message ... On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:05:44 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: I have been losing my ability to speak these past few years, and, as a consequence, find myself observing conversations far more often than I participate in them now. Lupis, wasn't it, Galen? How's it going? --riverman |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:12:45 +0100, "riverman" wrote:
Lupis, wasn't it, Galen? How's it going? Actually it is called primary lateral sclerosis, though few even in the medical profession are at all familiar with it. It has been described as a "gentler and kinder" form of ALS (Lou Gerhig's Disease). Although I can't walk or talk too well anymore, I can still paddle a kayak, and do often, in fact one lives in my van. Although I don't do much white water stuff myself, I am looking at some property near Big Shoals, the best white water in the whole Waterfall State. Come on down, y'all have probably never experienced white water like we have in this state. Besides, we take safety seriously here. We have fewer white water related accidents than most other states. Uh, you might not want to plan your trip between June and November however, the state does sometimes experience some rather strong wind and rain during that time. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com