Galen Hekhuis wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:45:46 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote:


That's a fair question. It seems that the short answer to increase
threat levels is "be more vigilant, but on with your life".
Realistically, there's little else an individual can do. We have to
expect that any specific threat will be dealt with by the authorities.


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.

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.
Years ago, I carried ice axes on a plane once, but I wouldn't try to do
that again.

The vagueness of the warnings is annoying, but they're apparently based
on increases in non-specific "chatter", so what other option is there? I
guess they could just say nothing, but I don't see that as helpful.

I'd guess doing effective stuff doesn't suit the current administration's
goals as well as frightening the public.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

"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

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

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.