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.

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

"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

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

Some of y'all might be making a bigger deal out of this torture stuff than it
really is. Camp Redemption "Onward Christian Soldiers!" Bwahahaha


Rumsfeld and Myers were accompanied here by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller,
commander of the prison system in Iraq, who told Rumsfeld that a new complex of
outdoor camps is going to open soon on the grounds outside the main prison
building.

It will be called ``Camp Redemption,'' he said, at the suggestion of the Iraqi
Governing Council, and will provide better living conditions for the
detainees.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...086582,00.html